Landfill Directive Report

EEA Report No 7/2009
Diverting waste from landfill

Effectiveness of waste‑management policies in the European Union
ISSN 1725‑9177
EEA Report No 7/2009

Cover design: EEA
Cover photo: © Maike Janßen
Left photo: © Stockxpert
Right photo: © Stockxpert
Layout: EEA/Marie Jaegly
Legal notice
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission
or other institutions of the European Communities. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any
person or company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the
information contained in this report.
Copyright notice
© EEA, Copenhagen, 2009
Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated.
Information about the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa
server (www.europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009
ISBN 978‑92‑9167‑998‑0
ISSN 1725‑9177
DOI 10.2800/10886
Environmental production
This publication is printed according to high environmental standards.
Printed by Schultz Grafisk

— Environmental Management Certificate: ISO 14001
— IQNet – The International Certification Network DS/EN ISO 14001:2004
— Quality Certificate: ISO 9001: 2000

— EMAS Registration. Licence no. DK – 000235
— Ecolabelling with the Nordic Swan, licence no. 541 176
Paper
RePrint — 90 gsm.
CyclusOffset 250 gsm.
Both paper qualities are recycled paper and have obtained the ecolabel Nordic Swan.
Printed in Denmark
REG.NO. DK- 000244
European Environment Agency

Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00
Fax: +45 33 36 71 99
Web: eea.europa.eu
Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries
Contents
Contents
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 5
Executive summary ................................................................................................... 7
Impact of EU policy ................................................................................................ 7
Successful national policies...................................................................................... 8
Summary of national strategies...............................................................................10
1 Background........................................................................................................ 12
1.1 Why study policies on diverting waste from landfill? .........................................12
1.2 EEA and policy effectiveness evaluations ........................................................13
1.3 Aims of the present study ............................................................................13
2 Waste management in the EU‑27 ....................................................................... 15
2.1 Development of municipal waste generation ...................................................16
2.2 Development of municipal waste management ................................................17
2.3 Drivers of change in waste generation and waste management .........................19
3 Methodological considerations ........................................................................... 21
3.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................21
3.2 Indicator‑based analysis ..............................................................................21
3.3 Interviews with key stakeholders...................................................................25
4 Estonia............................................................................................................... 26
4.1 Waste management situation........................................................................26
4.2 Waste policy objectives ................................................................................26
4.3 Institutional context ....................................................................................27
4.4 Policy instruments .......................................................................................27
4.5 Observations on effectiveness .......................................................................28
5 Finland ............................................................................................................... 30
5.4 Policy instruments ......................................................................................31
6 Flemish Region of Belgium ................................................................................. 34
7 Germany ............................................................................................................ 38
Diverting waste from landfill 3

8 Hungary ............................................................................................................. 42
9 Italy ................................................................................................................... 46
10 Comparative assessment and conclusions.......................................................... 50
10.1 Impact of EU policy .....................................................................................50
10.2 Influence of renewable energy policies ...........................................................51
10.3 Generation of biodegradable municipal waste ..................................................52
10.4 Landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste (Landfill Directive target) ...............53
10.5 Treatment capacity .....................................................................................53
10.6 Separate collection of biodegradable municipal waste fractions ..........................57
10.7 Importance of markets for compost and other recycled materials.......................58
10.8 Landfill taxes and gate fees ..........................................................................59
10.9 Regional responsibilities and cooperation .......................................................60
10.10 Public acceptance........................................................................................61
11 References ......................................................................................................... 62
12 Glossary of abbreviations and definitions .......................................................... 64
4 Diverting waste from landfill

Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
This report is based on a comprehensive analysis Thanks are due to all the contributors, especially
by the EEA's European Topic Centre on Resource the experts in Estonia, Finland, the Flemish Region
and Waste Management (ETC/RWM). Marton of Belgium, Germany, Hungary and Italy who
Herczeg, Mette Skovgaard, Roberto Zoboli and generously offered their views and valuable
Massimiliano Mazzanti prepared this report in contributions to this report. Some of them were
cooperation with Christian Fischer, Ruslan Zhechkov, interviewed face‑to‑face or consulted by phone,
Thomas Weissenbach, Federico Foschini, Andrea while others gathered for one day in Copenhagen
Massimiliano Lanz, Rosanna Laraia, David Legg, to discuss a draft version of the report. Many
Matti Viisimaa, Almut Reichel, Bartosz Zambrzycki, others sent us detailed and insightful comments
Krzysztof Wojcik and Hans Vos. Almut Reichel and helped us review the documents along the
and Jane Feehan were the EEA project managers way. They include:
and coordinated the report guided by Lars Fogh
Mortensen, David Stanners and Jock Martin.
Heikko Antsmäe Harju County Environmental Board, Estonia

Gábor Balázs Ministry for Environment and Water, Hungary
Zsuzsa Binder Bánhegyiné Local Authority of Kőbánya (a district of Budapest), Hungary
Gábor Bartus Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary
John Butson Milieu Ltd., Belgium
Roberto Caggiano Federambiente, Italy
Massimo Centemero Italian Composting Association, CIC , Italy
Rainer Cosson Bundesverband der deutschen Entsorgungswirtschaft, BDE,
Germany
Christof Delatter Association of Flemish Cities and Municipalities, VVSG, Belgium
Mieke De Schoenmakere Public Waste Agency of Flanders, OVAM, Belgium
Katleen Dierick Public Waste Agency of Flanders, OVAM, Belgium
Peeter Eek Ministry of Environment, Estonia
Bernd Engelmann Umweltbundesamt, Germany
Leena Eränkö The Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities,
AFLRA
Beatrix Farmosi Ministry for Environment and Water, Hungary
Daniele Fortini Federambiente, Italy
Leonardo Ghermandi Italian Composting Association, CIC
Margherita Gorio Fise Assoambiente, Italy
Benny Hasenson The Confederation of Finnish Industries, CFI
Tim Hermann Umweltbundesamt, Germany
Szabolcs Horváth Ministry for Environment and Water, Hungary
Toomas Ideon AS MAVES, Estonia
Dóra Kálmán Danube — Valley Inspectorate for Environmental Protection,
Nature Conservation and Water Management, Hungary
Jana Kivimägi Waste management board of Tallinn City, Estonia
Hans Dieter Kowalski Bundesländer Working group on Waste, LAGA‑ATA, Germany
Mervi Leikoski Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE
Chris Lorquet Recytyre, Flemish Region, Belgium

Paul Macken IOK Afvalbeheer, Flemish Region, Belgium
David McKinnon ETC/RWM
Harri Moora Stockholm Environmental Institute, Estonia
David Newman Italian Composting Association, CIC
Matti Nuutila The Association of Finnish Energy Industries, FEI
Pavel Ojava Environmental Inspectorate, Estonia
Katri Penttinen The Association of Environmental Enterprises, AEE, Finland
Katja Pedersen ETC/RWM
Elisabetta Perrotta Fise Assoambiente, Italy
Klaus Phister The Ministry of the Environment, Finland
Allan Pohlak Tallinna Prügila AS, Estonia
Heiko Põdersalu Environmental Investment Centre, Estonia
Lydia Putseys Public Waste Agency of Flanders, OVAM, Belgium
André Radde Ministry of Environment, Germany
Margit Rüütelmann Estonian Waste Management Association
Risto Saarinen Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE
Markku Salo The Finnish Solid Waste Association — JLY, FSWA
Ari Seppänen The Ministry of the Environment, Finland
Inge Singelyn Municipality of Aalst, Flanders, Belgium
Stefan Speck Danish National Environmental Research Institute, NERI
László Szilágyi Waste Prevention Alliance, HUMUSZ, Hungary
Kristel Vandenbroek Flemish Compost Organisation, VLACO, Belgium
Johan Vanerom Public Waste Agency of Flanders, OVAM, Belgium
Karl Wagner Ministry of Environment, Germany
Joachim Wuttke Umweltbundesamt, Germany

Executive summary
Executive summary
Issued in 1999, the Landfill Directive was a Impact of EU policy

milestone in EU waste policy. It marked a decisive
shift from landfill towards the EU's new waste Determining the extent to which EU policies have
hierarchy, which prioritises waste prevention, effected change in national waste management
followed by re‑use, recycling and recovery, and practices is a complex task. The process of diverting
seeks to avoid landfilling wherever feasible. biodegradable municipal waste from landfill
commenced at different times in the countries and
The rationale was clear: besides concerns about region studied and has proceeded at varying speeds.
landfill capacity in some countries, European In addition, urbanisation and population density
policy‑makers were compelled to act because of are obviously important socio‑economic drivers
growing awareness of landfill's environmental for diverting waste from landfill. Nonetheless, this
impact, notably emissions of methane and other report's findings are clear: the Landfill Directive has
gases, and pollution of groundwater, surface water been effective, advancing the closure of landfills and
and soil. On that basis, the Landfill Directive set increasing the use of alternative waste management
targets for progressively reducing the amount of options.
biodegradable municipal waste landfilled in the
period to 2016. The Landfill Directive: a flexible framework
A decade on from the Landfill Directive's The Landfill Directive's success is based on two
enactment seems a fitting time to review progress core factors. First, its combination of long‑term
and extract key lessons for policy‑makers in and intermediate targets has provided a good
Europe and elsewhere. Through individual and framework for countries to landfill less biodegradable
comparative analyses of waste management in five municipal waste. In particular, the targets have
countries and one sub‑national region (Estonia, helped governments and the European Commission
Finland, the Flemish Region of Belgium, Germany, measure progress and keep attention on the core
Hungary and Italy), as well as an econometric issues. Second, the directive's flexibility has been an
analysis of the EU–25 Member States, this report important asset, affording Member States the space to
seeks to answer a number of important questions, try out alternative policies, adjust measures to match
including: national and regional realities (including existing
waste management practices, institutional structures
• To what extent has waste management practice and environmental conditions), and adapt policies in
changed in the last decade? the light of experience.
• How much of the change was due to the Evidently, the Landfill Directive has had the greatest
Landfill Directive (and other EU instruments)? impact in locations where the process of shifting
away from landfill was not already under way. As
• What measures and institutional arrangements such, it has been a strong driver of change in Estonia,
did countries introduce? Italy and Hungary and had less impact in Germany
and the Flemish Region, where implementation
• Which measures and arrangements proved of diversion policies started before the directive's
most effective in different national and adoption. Likewise, countries' progress towards the
regional contexts? directive's targets varies according to the maturity
of their diversion strategies; although all the areas
The report's key findings are summarised below. studied are making progress, the Flemish Region
and Germany are a considerable distance ahead
and already comfortably meet the 2016 target for
landfilling biodegradable municipal waste.

Executive summary
There is no evidence that the Landfill Directive has The strategies usually include a combination of
lessened municipal waste generation. Per capita recycling, incineration, and/or mechanical‑biological
generation of biodegradable municipal waste treatment.
likewise remained pretty stable over the period
1995–2006. However, the econometric analysis Landfill capacity
of the EU‑25 States revealed some decoupling of
waste generation from income. It also indicated that Closing landfills is an important driver for adopting
general national waste strategies had little effect new waste treatment options. The number of
on municipal waste generation; reducing waste landfills in the countries and region studied
generation demands specifically targeted policies. decreased significantly in the last 10–15 years,
mostly through the closure of dumpsites and other
Other EU instruments low standard sites. Although this probably implies
a reduction in total landfill capacity, data on current
Besides the Landfill Directive, other EU instruments waste generation and landfill rates indicate that
have helped reduce landfilling. In some countries, existing capacity in most countries is sufficient for
notably Estonia and Hungary, the introduction many years to come.
of separate collection schemes for biodegradable
packaging waste (paper, cardboard and wood Incineration
packaging) pursuant to the Packaging Directive
(1994) has helped initiate the diversion of Incineration capacity has increased significantly as
biodegradable waste from landfill. This may be governments have tightened emissions standards,
because this was the first directive to introduce although the rate of growth has varied widely in the
obligatory recycling targets for selected materials areas studied. In Germany and the Flemish Region
and packaging is a very visible waste stream for of Belgium, dedicated incineration capacity now
citizens. accounts for around 35 % of municipal waste
generated. In other areas, however, several factors
The Renewable Energy Directive (2001/77/EC) obliges have slowed the shift to incineration. These include
EU Member States to set national indicative targets public opposition, largely based on worries about
for the amount of gross electricity consumption to be the environmental and health impacts of emissions,
supplied from renewable sources by 2010. Because and — in the case of Finland — difficulties
incineration of biodegradable municipal waste integrating waste incineration into existing power
with energy recovery is considered a renewable and heating systems. For these reasons, incineration
energy source, the directive provides an additional capacity stands at around 15 % of municipal waste
incentive to divert biodegradable waste from in Italy and less than 10 % in Finland and Hungary.
landfill.
It is interesting to note, however, that after trying
alternatives both Estonia and Finland are now
Successful national policies planning to extend incineration capacity in order
to meet the Landfill Directive's diversion targets.
Unsurprisingly, given the Landfill Directive's Both are situated in the colder parts of Europe and
flexibility and the heterogeneity of national and energy recovery is an important aspect of their
regional conditions, there is significant variance decisions.
in the methods used by countries and even within
countries. Member States use a variety of strategies Separate collection of biodegradable municipal waste
to divert biodegradable municipal waste from fractions
landfill. Often such strategies are embedded in
programmes addressing municipal waste or also Separate collection of biodegradable municipal
cover biodegradable waste from other sources, such waste fractions (mainly paper and cardboard,
as industry. packaging waste, and food and garden waste) is
increasingly used to divert biodegradable waste
In general terms, diverting waste from landfill from landfill. Again, the countries and region
has relied on combinations of policies aimed at studied showed considerable variation in the
households, waste companies and producers. amounts of waste collected separately. Whereas
And countries have progressed or plan to separately collected municipal waste fractions
progress further towards the Landfill Directive total more than 200 kilograms per capita in the
targets by strengthening several alternative waste Flemish Region each year, they are only about
treatment paths, rather than focusing on just one. 20 kilograms in Hungary (but are growing steadily).

Executive summary
Mechanical‑biological treatment Landfill costs and economic instruments
Mechanical‑biological treatment is used as an To comply with the provisions of the Landfill

alternative option to incineration to treat mixed Directive, countries have introduced various measures
municipal waste in Estonia, the Flemish Region, to increase the cost of landfilling. In Estonia gate fees
Germany and Italy. Mechanical‑biological treatment rose by 700 % in the decade to 2006, while in Finland
is a pre‑treatment method, whereby mixed household the increase was around 300 %. This corresponds
waste is mechanically separated into a high caloric to annual gate fee increases of 23 % and 14 %
refuse‑derived fuel product and a residue, which respectively. Gate fees rose by a more modest 40 % in
is first digested or composted and then sent for the Flemish Region over the decade (equivalent to 3 %
landfilling or to dedicated incinerators. Capacity annually), albeit from a much higher base.
for mechanical‑biological treatment has doubled or
tripled in some countries, with Italy having by far the The increasing gate fees mainly result from rising
largest treatment capacity at 240 kilograms per capita. technical standards for landfills and implementation
The countries studied that use this treatment option all of the principle that gate fees should cover all
use or are planning to use dedicated incineration and costs involved in the setting up, operating and
co‑incineration of the refuse‑derived fuel produced to closing landfills. In addition, Estonia, Finland,
generate energy. the Flemish Region and Italy use landfill taxes to
discourage landfilling of waste. This study finds that
Composting to be effective landfill tax rates should be relatively
high, although in Estonia rapid increases to a
Since 1999, capacity at composting and anaerobic relatively low landfill tax have achieved a similar
digestion plants has increased manifold in Finland, effect.
Germany, Hungary and Italy. Germany has the largest
composting capacity per capita, followed by Italy, Economic instruments such as user charges for
Finland and the Flemish Region; capacity in Hungary managing municipal waste (e.g. 'pay‑as‑you‑throw'
and Estonia is considerably lower. Since 1999, capacity schemes), landfill taxes and product charges can play
has increased by five times in Finland and Hungary, a significant role in diverting waste from landfill if
and tripled in Italy. It rose by 50 % in Germany in four they are designed in such as way that they regulate
years. Separate collection schemes have struggled the behaviour of households, waste companies and
to keep up with the increased processing capacity. producers effectively.
Compost plants in Estonia, Germany, Hungary and
Italy operate at 50 % of their capacity or less. Regional responsibilities and cooperation
Markets for compost and other recycled materials When governments and competent waste
management authorities set waste management
The countries and region studied stressed that if objectives and targets these must be clearly defined.
composting is to play a role in diverting waste from Governments also need to designate clearly the
landfill then a well‑functioning market for compost is institutions and actors responsible for meeting them.
needed. This in turn necessitates that the products of
biological treatment of biowaste are of good quality. Cooperation between municipalities or larger
This report finds that the quality of the compost geographical units such as provinces or districts
derived from separately collected biodegradable waste plays an important role in ensuring that necessary
is not always sufficient. financial and human capacity is available to develop
alternatives to landfill.
National quality standards for compost have been set
in Finland, the Flemish Region, Germany and Italy, Public acceptance and communication
and seem to have been effective in making compost
quality adequate for agricultural use, wholesale and An often overlooked problem in waste recycling is
private gardening. In addition, in its Green paper the lack of acceptance of waste‑derived products
on the management of biowaste in the EU (2008), among potential users. In Finland and Hungary there
the European Commission sets out proposals for seems to be a basic aversion to using fertilisers made
improving biowaste management in the EU, including of waste, so the problem is not the quality of the
EU‑wide regulation of compost quality. Home compost but its image. Overcoming this problem will
composting is gradually increasing in most of the necessitate securing good compost quality, as well
countries, and evidence suggests that there is potential as comprehensive communication campaigns and
to expand this treatment option. stakeholder dialogues.

Executive summary
Lack of public acceptance is also very often an incineration capacity while the single incinerator
obstacle for the introduction of waste incineration. was under reconstruction for several years.
Germany and the Flemish Region have tackled
incineration's poor reputation in the past by setting In both Estonia and Hungary official stakeholders,
ambitious emission standards. In Italy, public including the ministries of environment, generally
acceptance of waste incineration may increase with believe that the Landfill Directive targets cannot be
the implementation of the national guidelines on met without waste incineration. According to the
best available techniques for waste incineration. data of Eurostat, Estonia has managed to achieve a
considerable reduction of municipal waste landfilled
Policy measures and instruments that the public from 95 % in 2000 to around 60 % in 2006. In 2005, the
traditionally regards positively, for example reported recovery rate was 24 %. It appears, however,
separate collection of waste paper, can be further that a further 16 % of the generated waste is disposed
strengthened. In addition, regular communication of, exported or undergoes some other treatment.
activities are important to keep households and
others aware and active in separating waste and Finland
participating in home composting schemes.
In the 1990s the Finnish strategy for diverting
Quality of data on biodegradable municipal waste biodegradable waste from landfills focused mainly
on recycling, including composting and anaerobic
The lack of a harmonised method to measure or digestion. Problems arose, however, because the
estimate the amount of biodegradable municipal Finnish climate created technical problems for
waste makes it difficult to compare data from composting plants. Moreover, regulations that made
different countries. Whereas the amount of municipalities responsible for providing municipal
separately collected biodegradable waste fractions waste treatment capacity did not specify which kind
(mainly biowaste, paper and cardboard) can be of treatment should be used. As a result, several
measured directly, the share of biodegradable municipalities fulfilled their obligations by expanding
municipal waste in the mixed municipal waste has landfill capacity.
to be estimated.
From 2000 to 2005 Finland's focus shifted towards
The information from the countries and region co‑incineration but the introduction of stricter
reveals different methodologies and assumptions. emission standards pursuant to the EU Waste
For example, the estimated share of biodegradable Incineration Directive made the use of municipal
municipal waste in municipal waste varies from waste fractions unattractive for operators of
52 % to 83 %. Planners and authorities need good co‑incineration plants. Over the same period
waste statistics to implement appropriate policy landfilling of municipal waste has remained constant
measures and monitor the progress. A European at around 60 %. The new waste plan from 2008 focuses
guideline harmonising the estimation of more on dedicated incineration plants combined with
biodegradable municipal waste amounts would thus co‑incineration.
facilitate more effective and comparable monitoring
of progress towards the Landfill Directive's Flemish Region of Belgium
diversion targets.
The strategy in the Flemish Region has been
to increase separate collection, promote home
Summary of national strategies composting and make maximum use of existing
incineration capacity. Many policy instruments were
Estonia and Hungary introduced, mostly between 1990 and 1999. The
national waste plan is a powerful instrument because
In Estonia and Hungary the waste diversion strategies once approved by the government its provisions
have focused on establishing treatment capacity apply to all public authorities. Other prominent
and setting up schemes for separate collection. Such measures include voluntary agreements with
schemes largely cover packaging waste, with those municipalities, communication activities (especially
targeting biowaste at an early stage of development. on separate collection and home composting), a rising
Hungary has consistently landfilled approximately landfill tax, and a ban on landfill and incineration of
80 % of municipal waste. This constancy is partly certain waste streams such as unsorted household
because improvements in material recovery waste. By 2006 the Flemish Region had reduced
and mechanical‑biological treatment capacities landfilling to around 1 % of total household waste
were counterbalanced by temporarily reduced generation.

Executive summary
Germany Italy
The German strategy on biodegradable waste has Based on the national strategy for biodegradable
focused on separate collection and recycling of waste, the Italian regions have developed
secondary raw materials (paper and biowaste), programmes for diverting waste from landfills.
mechanical‑biological treatment, dedicated The regions have chosen different approaches; the
incineration with energy recovery of mixed northern ones use more incineration and southern
household waste and banning the landfill of waste ones more mechanical‑biological treatment.
with organic content of more than 3 %. Separate Separate collection, especially of biodegradable
collection schemes have been successful in achieving fractions of municipal waste but also of packaging
very high recycling rates. waste, also plays a major role. Every 'optimal
management area' (or province) has to meet a set
A landfill ban was adopted in 1993 but due to several of national targets for landfilling biodegradable
loopholes it was not implemented properly. The municipal waste. These are defined in kilograms
loopholes were closed with the Waste Landfilling per inhabitant in order to improve monitoring at
Ordinance (2001), which confirmed the deadline of the local level. As a result, Italy has continuously
1 June 2005 for implementing the landfill ban and decreased its landfilling of municipal waste so that
included special provisions for landfilling residues about half was diverted in 2006. However, there is a
from mechanical‑biological treatment. Since the considerable difference between the performance of
deadline, the amount of municipal waste landfilled the northern regions and the southern and central
has fallen to 1 %. regions of the country.

Background
1 Background

1.1 Why study policies on diverting The European Commission has published a green
waste from landfill? paper on the management of biowaste in the EU
(EC, 2008b). It sets out several options to improve
Diverting waste from landfill is an important biowaste management, including standards for
element in EU policy on improving the use composts, specific biowaste prevention measures
of resources and reducing the environmental and tighter targets for biodegradable municipal
impacts of waste management. In particular, in waste sent to landfill.
pursuance of Directive 1999/31/EC on landfill
of waste (hereafter referred to as the Landfill Greenhouse gas emissions are also becoming more
Directive), Member States are obliged to set up and more relevant in waste management planning.
national strategies for reducing the amount of Landfilled biodegradable waste produces methane
biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) going to many years after the waste has been deposited.
landfill (Box 1.1). Countries with high dependence on landfill can
take positive action against climate change by
The Waste Framework Directive was revised and landfilling less biodegradable waste. Likewise, in
the new directive (2008/98/EC) issued in November countries that have very low landfill rates, waste
2008. Several of the new provisions in the directive recycling and energy recovery can help avoid
aim to reduce landfilling. Key issues are the greenhouse gas emissions from the production of
introduction of quantitative targets on recycling virgin material or energy (EEA, 2008a). Effective
of selected waste materials from households and waste management, including high levels of
other origins, and of construction and demolition recycling and possibly incineration with energy
waste. It provided for the development of waste recovery, can partly offset the emissions released
prevention and decoupling objectives for 2020. when the raw materials and products were
Furthermore, it reclassified waste‑to‑energy extracted and manufactured. If the recovery rate
incineration as a recovery operation provided that is sufficiently high then the waste management
waste‑to‑energy plants meet certain efficiency sector could help achieve the Kyoto targets. In
standards. 2005, waste management contributed 2.6 % of
Box 1.1 Main provisions of the Landfill Directive
According to the Directive 1999/31/EC on landfill of waste, Member States must reduce the amount of
biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill
• to 75 % of the total amount of biodegradable municipal waste generated in 1995 by 2006;
• to 50 % of 1995 levels by 2009;
• to 35 % of 1995 levels by 2016.
Member States who landfilled more than 80 % of their municipal waste in 1995 can apply for a prolongation
of the time limits not exceeding four years. Some Member States (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and the United Kingdom) have made use of
this option and have special derogation periods.
The directive also prohibits landfilling of certain waste types (such as waste tyres and liquid waste) and
introduces classes of landfill and a system for landfill permits. With these measures and with the general
provision that only waste that has been subject to treatment, including sorting, can be landfilled, the Landfill
Directive is expected to have a major effect on the design of future waste management systems.

Background
total greenhouse gas emissions in the EU‑15 The European Commission also needs information
(EEA, 2007c). on the extent to which directives and measures
are working in Member States. Reporting by
Finally, Directive 2001/77/EC on the promotion of Member States on the implementation of directives
electricity produced from renewable energy sources seldom covers the effectiveness of the instruments
in the internal electricity market, may stimulate used by the countries. The EEA can help to fill this
waste incineration with energy recovery. The knowledge gap.
biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal
waste is defined in the directive as a renewable, EEA member countries, including all the
non‑fossil energy source. Production of electricity 27 Member States of the EU, face increasing demands
from incineration of municipal waste contributes to identify successful and unsuccessful policy
to meeting the EU renewable energy target of 12 % interventions and the conditions that framed them.
of total energy supply by 2010. Individual targets This is particularly the case for the 12 Member States
have been set for each Member State. According to that joined since 2004, who face a significant challenge
the European Commission's 2008 integrated climate to implement EU directives as soon as possible, while
change and energy package (EC, 2008a) and the avoiding the mistakes and problems that the EU‑15
proposed directive on renewable energy sources Member States encountered.
(EC, 2008c), Member States are expected to define
ambitious new targets for generating electricity and The EEA report, Reporting on environmental measures
heat from waste to help achieve the EU's goal of — are we being effective? (EEA, 2001), concluded
generating 20 % of energy from renewable sources that little is known about the extent to which past
by 2020. environmental policies and instruments have affected
the environment.
Various combinations of policy measures can
be used to achieve EU targets on diverting Since then, the EEA published three studies on policy
biowaste from landfill. Countries with different effectiveness (EEA, 2005a; EEA, 2005b; EEA, 2008b).
socio‑economic characteristics and geographical These helped build capacity in undertaking such
conditions may have different approaches. This evaluations and the required methodologies, and
study presents the main characteristics of the provided the European Parliament, the Commission
different routes chosen by selected Member States, and EEA member countries with analyses of the
the effectiveness of policy instruments applied and effectiveness of policy instruments in certain areas and
also some information at the pan‑European level. countries.
1.2 EEA and policy effectiveness 1.3 Aims of the present study
evaluations
This study analyses the effectiveness of national
The Sixth Environment Action Programme of the policies on diverting total municipal waste and
European Community (EP/EC, 2002) highlights biodegradable municipal waste from landfill
the need to undertake 'ex post evaluation of the pursuant to the Landfill Directive and other
effectiveness of existing measures in meeting their relevant directives. This includes an analysis of
environmental objectives'. Such evaluations require whether the Landfill Directive has been a driver for
a sound understanding of policy instruments implementing national policies to divert waste from
and the mechanisms that lead to their observed landfill.
effects. This means that it is essential to know what
measures have been implemented in response to a Waste policies must be seen in the broader life‑cycle
given directive, their effects and the national context perspective of resource use, consumption and
in which they are supposed to operate. production; prevention and recycling of waste
are important elements in this life‑cycle. There
For a number of years, the European Parliament are different routes to divert waste from landfill,
has clearly expressed its wish for the EEA to including prevention and recycling, other material
provide information on the implementation of and energy recovery, and pre‑treatment. Not all of
policies in the Member States and to analyse the them are used by all Member States. In this study
effectiveness of past EU policies. The Parliament is we focus on why specific sets of measures were
particularly interested in information and analysis chosen and evaluate which measures worked well
on the implementation of EU legislation in the and why, and explore success factors and reasons for
Member States. unsatisfactory results.

The report analyses the effectiveness of policies, • ensuring that a variety of biodegradable
i.e. if and how they achieved their objectives and municipal waste and municipal waste
produced outcomes. It does not address either management strategies were evaluated;
cost‑effectiveness or cost‑benefit analysis of the
same policies. This is mainly because of the lack • ensuring the inclusion of both new and old
of detailed information on economic and financial Member States and large and smaller ones;
aspects of landfill and waste management in most
EU Member States. Landfill and incineration • ensuring a diversity of demographic and
gate fees were taken into account, however, as geographical conditions.
relevant factors influencing the effectiveness of
waste management systems. The effects of applied The detailed evaluation of the five countries and one
economic instruments are also included in the region is presented in a series of background papers
analysis. that also set out all information sources (ETC/RWM,
2008a–f).
The study does not aim to evaluate Member States'
legal implementation of the Landfill Directive In addition, a quantitative analysis of socio‑economic
formally. Rather, it assesses the functioning of policy and technical factors influencing generation and
packages and instruments that have been introduced management of municipal waste was carried out
pursuant to the directive and other measures in for the EU‑25 Member States (ETC/RWM, 2008h).
order to divert waste from landfill. Moreover, That paper comprises an econometric analysis of
the study will not examine the extent to which the main drivers of municipal waste generation, the
Member States have actually implemented the more choice of waste management options and the role of
technical requirements for landfills. economic factors and policies. It addresses the EU‑25
Member States, with insights specific to the EU‑15 and
Chapter 2 of the study includes, to the extent the EU‑10 Member States presented separately. The
possible, information on waste management in results are set out in Section 2.3 of the present report.
the 27 EU Member States that must implement the
Landfill Directive. In order to gain deeper insights There is no fixed time‑frame for the individual
on the effectiveness of national waste policies country evaluations. Instead, the analysis of each
related to the Landfill Directive, five countries country or region begins when it started to introduce
and one sub‑national region were analysed in polices to reduce dependency on landfill. In Germany
more detail in subsequent chapters. The results of and the Flemish Region of Belgium it was in the
the analysis are considered useful for all 32 EEA 1980s, whereas the process in Finland and Italy
member countries and EEA cooperating countries, started in the early‑ and mid‑1990s. In the newer
however, and are probably also of value outside Member States, Estonia and Hungary, policies were
Europe. Countries not covered in the detailed mostly implemented to fulfil the requirements of the
analysis of this study are encouraged to make use acquis communautaire of the EU, which began in the
of the developed methodology. mid‑1990s.
In‑depth evaluations were conducted for Estonia, Following the individual analysis of the five countries
Finland, the Flemish Region of Belgium, Germany, and one region set out in Chapters 4–9, Chapter 10
Hungary and Italy. The criteria for selecting these provides a cross‑cutting comparative analysis of the
countries and region were: countries and region and the report conclusions.
Box 1.2 Waste streams considered in this study
Municipal waste means waste from households and other waste which, because of its nature or
composition, is similar to waste from households (cf. the Landfill Directive). Some of this waste is
biodegradable, e.g. paper and cardboard, food waste and garden waste.
Biodegradable waste means any waste that is capable of undergoing anaerobic or aerobic decomposition,
such as food and garden waste, and paper and paperboard (cf. the Landfill Directive). In this report, only
the biodegradable waste included in municipal waste is addressed.
Biowaste means biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste from households,
restaurants, caterers and retail premises and comparable waste from food processing plants (cf. the
Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC)).

Waste management in the EU‑27
2 Waste management in the EU‑27
The Sixth Environment Action Programme measures to support waste prevention activities,
(2002–2012) sets out the EU's key environmental e.g. by setting prevention and decoupling
objectives. One of the overall goals is to decouple objectives for 2020. Also by 2020, at least 50 % of
resource use and waste generation from the rate of waste materials such as paper, glass, metals and
the economic growth. The programme also targets plastic from households and possibly from other
a significant, overall reduction in the volumes of origins must be recycled or prepared for re‑use.
waste generated through waste prevention initiatives The minimum target set for construction and
and a significant reduction in the quantity of waste demolition waste is 70 % by 2020.
going to disposal. It further encourages reuse and
aims to reduce the level of hazard, giving preference In the next two sections of this chapter, we present
to recovery and especially recycling, making waste the development of waste generation, landfilling
disposal as safe as possible, and ensuring that waste and incineration from 1995 to 2007 using Eurostat
for disposal is treated as close as possible to its source. Structural Indicators (1). As reported data on
recovery and recycling were not available for all
According to the new Waste Framework Directive Member States, an indication of the EU recovery
(2008/98/EC), the European Commission will propose level is given by assuming that waste neither
Figure 2.1 Generation of municipal waste in the EU‑27, 1995 and 2007
Kg per capita
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
y
m lta
N Au n
m a
La d
ce
Ir us
H ece
rla a
en d
Sw nd
Fr ia
Es 7
Fi m
EU n
Po ria
lg l
Po ia
G ia
Bu ary
a
ny
k
Sl nia
Sl blic
Cy rg
m
Be ga
ni Ge al
Ro tvi
nd
n
he tri
ai
D lan
Li ani
ar
e
-2
n
ak
en
iu
do
an
u
pr
la
xe Ma
ed
a
d ma
a
Sp
to
u
ua
m
s
re
bo
pu
I
nl
lg
ov
e
ov
rt
ng
un
th
r
Re
Ki
et
h
Lu
ec
te
Cz
1995 2007
Source: Eurostat Structural Indicators.
(1) Eurostat is the Statistical Office of the European Communities.

landfilled nor incinerated is recovered. However, Interestingly, although ten of the EU‑12
the actual recovery rate might be lower if countries Member States have enjoyed relatively rapid
use other treatment options extensively such as economic growth over the period, municipal waste
mechanical‑biological treatment (MBT), which generation has fallen or increased by less than 2 %
cannot be regarded as recovery per se. in five of those countries. There are several possible
reasons for the decrease: some biowaste may have
The last section of this chapter describes the been reused as animal feed, some combustible
findings of the study on drivers of municipal waste waste may have been used as fuel in individual
generation, landfilling and incineration over the households due to increasing coal prices (EEA,
period 1995–2005 for 25 Member States. 2007b). Furthermore, the gradual introduction of
weighbridges at the landfills has provided more
reliable information. Previously, the amounts of
2.1 Development of municipal waste municipal waste were estimated according to the
generation volume, which may have led to an overestimation
of the mass.
On average (unweighted), the European citizen
generated 10 % more waste in 2007 than in 1995 In 18 Member States, however, growth in waste
(Eurostat). The waste volume grew even faster generation was above average, with the highest
(11.5 %) in the EU‑15 Member States. As Figure 2.1 rate of increase (93 %) occurring in Malta.
illustrates, these aggregated figures mask
considerable differences between Member States. Member States have difficulties in preventing
Whereas the Czech Republic generated less than the generation of municipal waste, mainly
300 kilograms of municipal waste per inhabitant, because of increased consumption. Nonetheless,
Denmark exceeds 800 kilograms per capita. Some a recent study shows that there is potential for
Member States have experienced exceptionally preventing biowaste from households, especially
high growth rates over the last eleven years and in wealthier parts of Europe (Ventour, 2008). The
others have experienced a considerable decrease. study presented in Box 2.1 shows that British
Box 2.1 The food we waste
A study published by the UK Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) shows that roughly
one‑third of the food bought in Britain each year, or 6.7 million tonnes, is thrown away. Of this waste,
4.1 million tonnes are 'avoidable', i.e. it is food that is no longer wanted or it has been allowed to go past its
best. It corresponds to 70 kilograms waste per person. The study also finds that about 1 million tonnes of
the waste, or around 15 kilograms per person, comprises products unopened or whole when thrown away.
UK consumers spend EUR 12.6 billion on food that is thrown away each year but could have been used if
stored or managed better — corresponding to EUR 530 per household. The table below shows the main
groups of avoidable food waste and their associated costs.
Avoidable food waste Tonnage Cost

(1 000 tonnes) (million EUR)
Fresh fruit, vegetables and salad 1 405 3 070
Bakery 782 1 807
Mixed foods (for example home‑made) 666 2 742
Meat and fish 279 1 857
Dairy products 187 708
Other 560 2 338
The study also reveals that people's age does not seem to affect the amount of food waste that they
produce. However, single‑person households produce more food waste on average than those with two or
more persons.
Source: Ventour (2008) and exchange rates from the European Central Bank (May 2008).

households throw away 70 kilograms food waste Data on incineration present almost the inverse
per person every year that could in principle have image (Figure 2.3). Thirteen countries had either no
been avoided. Although these results may not incineration or incinerated less than 10 % of their
be directly transferable to other countries, they municipal waste in 2007. Eight EU‑15 Member States
do provide an indication of how much waste incinerated more than 20 % of municipal waste.
could have been avoided through better planning The figures from Eurostat do not indicate whether
in households. Communication and awareness incineration takes place with or without energy
raising campaigns may be needed to address this recovery. According to the International Energy
issue. Agency, however, all eight countries produce energy
from municipal waste incineration, although with
different rates of efficiency (IEA, 2005).
2.2 Development of municipal waste
management According to recently published data, 22 % of
municipal waste generated in 2007 has been recycled
Landfilling municipal waste has been the and 17 % composted (Eurostat, 2009).
predominant option in the EU‑27 Member States
for several years but this is changing. In 1995, A new study has analysed the waste generated by
62 % of municipal waste was landfilled on average selected waste streams in the EU‑27 in 2004 and
and in 2007 this had fallen to 42 %. However, estimated the potential for recovery (Alwast et al.,
waste management practises vary greatly among 2008) (2) (Table 2.1). The amount of biodegradable
the Member States. Figure 2.2 shows that eight waste generated totalled 87.9 million tonnes. Around
EU‑15 Member States landfilled less than 40 % 67 % of this waste was from municipal sources and
of the municipal waste in 2007, while seven the remaining 33 % was from the food industry and
EU‑12 Member States landfilled 80 % or more. services. Thirty‑seven per cent of biodegradable waste
The figures also show that several countries have was recovered but the picture varied across the EU
realised considerable reductions in landfilling over and the authors concluded that the countries' recovery
the period. potential was between 31 % and 98 %.
Figure 2.2 Percentage of municipal waste that is landfilled in the EU‑27, 1995 and 2007
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
th a
C ia
La s
H nia
G ia
ul e
Re ria
S blic
S kia
m y
Po ia
Po nd
S l
te Ire in
in d
Es m
Fi ia
E y
Lu Fr 7
m ce
A rg
en a
B ark
um
y
he den
a
ru
G nd
an
Ro ar
al
ec
t
D tri
K an
an
-2
n
tv
an
ug
n
pa
o
al
u
xe an
la
a
va
It
ve
ua
to
yp
gd
gi
g
m
bo
pu
us
re
m
N we
l
nl
M
ch g
U
rt
un
rl
el
lo
lo
er
S
B
Li
et
d
ze
ni
C
1995 2007
Source: Calculated using Eurostat Structural Indicators.
(2) Alwast et al. (2008) used available waste generation data from national statistics according to the European Waste Catalogue
(EWC) and the EWC‑Stat categorisation.

Table 2.1 Generation and recovery of selected waste streams in the EU, 2004
Total Share from From municipal sources

Waste generation Recovery municipal sources Waste generation Recovery
Kilograms per Kilograms per
Million tonnes % % capita capita
Biodegradable waste 87.9 37 67 120 44
Waste paper 79.5 56 44 71 40
Waste wood * 70.5 65 n/a n/a n/a
Textiles 12.1 32 50 12 4
Note: * From wood working industry, construction and demolition, packaging and bulky waste.
Source: Alwast et al. 2008.
Figure 2.3 Percentage of municipal waste that is incinerated in the EU‑27, 1995 and 2007
%
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ia
Cy ia
Es s
G ia
Ir ce
Po a
m d
Sl nia
te un a
ng y
m
in
Re ia
Fi lic
Po aly
EU al
7
he tria
Be ds
G ium
Fr g
Sw ce
k
en n
u
xe an
ar
r
ni
i
Li an
an
ur
D de
-2
en
ar
tv
ak
ug
a
do
al
ga
b
e
an
n
pr
la
It
to
ua
Sp
m
bo
pu
N Aus
re
rla
Lu rm
e
el
nl
La
M
lg
lg
ec lov
ov
rt
th
Bu
m
Ro
e
Ki
H
et
h
d
Cz
ni
U
1995 2007
Source: Calculated using Eurostat Structural Indicators.
Broadly speaking, Member States can be The second grouping brings together countries
categorised under three waste management with high material recovery rates and medium
'groupings', clustered according to their strategies levels of incineration, and with a medium
for diverting municipal waste away from landfill dependence on landfill. In general countries in
and their relative shares of landfilling, material this grouping introduced policy instruments after
recovery (mainly recycling and composting) and adopting the Packaging Directive in 1994 and the
incineration (EEA, 2007a). Landfill Directive in 1999.
The first grouping comprises countries that The third grouping contains those countries whose
maintain high levels of both material recovery and material recovery and incineration levels are both
incineration, and have relatively low landfill levels. low and whose dependence on landfill is relatively
Countries in this group generally introduced high. This group comprises the majority of the
several policy instruments early, often before the EU‑12 Member States in the process of implementing
adoption of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and EU regulations and several, but not all Member States
packaging waste (hereinafter referred to as 'the with a 4‑year derogation from the Landfill Directive
Packaging Directive') and the Landfill Directive. (i.e. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Lithuania,

Figure 2.4 Three country groupings defined that influence waste generation, management and
by diversion strategy disposal and therefore must be taken into account
when designing waste policies.
-30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60°
2.3.1 Waste generation

60°
First, the analysis finds no absolute decoupling
60°
of municipal solid waste (MSW) generation and
consumption per capita. Contrary to earlier analyses
on the subject, however, there is now evidence of a
relative decoupling, i.e. MSW generation is growing
more slowly than income. The new Member States
50°
seem to have experienced a larger relative decoupling.
50°
In addition, the analysis suggests that high population

density and urbanisation result in more waste
generation and that richer and more services‑oriented
economies produce more municipal waste. However,
40° insufficient coverage of waste collection systems, such
40°
as in rural Estonia, can have a significant impact on
the accuracy of data on the amount of waste collected.
0 500
0°
1000 1500 Km
10° 20° 30° Income growth, urbanisation and an expanding
service sector can all lead to more MSW generation.
Environmentally responsible behaviour by firms and
Three country groupings defined by diversion strategy households, the adoption of waste recovery/reuse
1: Incineration > 25 % and material recovery > 25 % innovations and waste prevention policies may be
among the drivers that can reverse MSW growth in
2: Incineration < 25 % and material recovery > 25 % the future.
3: Incineration < 25 % and material recovery < 25 %
As for policies, the implementation of the Landfill
Outside data coverage Directive appears not to have provided incentives to
reduce MSW generation. There is likewise no evidence
that more general national waste strategies have had
Source: Based on data for 2006, Eurostat Structural Indicators.
a significant effect on MSW generation. Policies more
specifically targeted to waste prevention seem to
be necessary to achieve further waste reductions as
Poland, Romania, Slovakia and the United economies grow.
Kingdom) or from the Packaging Directive (Greece
and Portugal). 2.3.2 Diversion from landfill
The geographical distribution of the three Whereas MSW generation increased in the
groupings is shown in Figure 2.4. EU with growing incomes, albeit at a slower
rate, the analysis identified a significant
absolute decoupling of MSW landfilled and
2.3 Drivers of change in waste income, i.e. incomes rose while less MSW was
generation and waste landfilled. For the EU as a whole, this process
management of diverting waste from landfill started around
1995–1997, although some countries, such as the
Like policies, economic and demographic factors Flemish Region of Belgium and Germany, had
play an important role in the generation and already started earlier. This is discussed in the
management of municipal waste. This section country chapters within this report, which in some
presents the results of an econometric analysis cases include pre‑1995 data.
conducted for the EU‑25 Member States covering
the years 1995–2005 (ETC/RWM, 2008h; Mazzanti Increased urbanisation and rising population
and Zoboli, 2008). This analysis can help densities appear to be socio‑economic factors
determine the framework conditions and factors driving the diversion of waste from landfill. In

densely populated areas the value of land is amounts of incinerated waste) shows a positive
generally higher, making it more costly to use relationship between consumption growth per capita
areas for landfill and increasing the incentive to and incinerated MSW. We should expect a similar
invest in separate collection schemes, which can be development for the new Member States in the future
operated more efficiently than in areas with low if emission standards are enforced strictly. However,
population density. the trend is nevertheless expected to stabilize
eventually.
Policies also appear to have a significant effect
on the diversion of waste from landfill. Policy The analysis also shows that research and
variables, both specifically linked to EU directives development expenditures as a proportion of GDP
or to waste strategies at national level seem to be — a country‑specific indicator of technological
very relevant in explaining the landfill diversion investment and capacity — correlates positively with
practice in EU Member States. the level of incinerated waste. This evidence suggests
that it will be relevant to investigate the role of EU
2.3.3 Incineration (environmental) innovation policies, which may link
directly (through 'waste directives') and indirectly
Evidence from EU‑15 Member States (the new to the development of enhanced, more effective and
Member States are not considered due to negligible more efficient waste treatment options.

Methodological considerations
3 Methodological considerations
3.1 Introduction to landfill is therefore conducted using a mixed

qualitative and quantitative methodology.
The study analyses the diversion of waste from
landfill pursuant to the Landfill Directive and other The favouring and hindering factors and the
relevant waste directives, such as the Packaging waste diversion indicator are analysed for all
Directive. The study combines an indicator‑based five countries and one sub‑national region. These
methodology to evaluate information on policy factors are used in the comparative analysis
changes and other pertinent factors, and interviews (Chapter 10) for deriving cross‑country conclusions
with key stakeholders in each of the geographical on the effectiveness of waste policies related to
areas studied. the Landfill Directive. Where relevant, some of
the factors are also described in more detail in the
chapters presenting the situation in the specific
3.2 Indicator‑based analysis countries/region (Chapters 4–9). In addition to the
favouring and hindering factors, those chapters
Landfill levels can be influenced not only by waste include a discursive review of landfill policies in the
policies, but also by many other factors in the waste five countries and one region.
system, e.g. developments in waste generation,
waste collection, recycling,and incineration. These The methodology employing favouring and
developments may favour or hinder the diversion of hindering factors and the evaluation of each
waste from landfills that is the aim of landfill policy. country/region are presented in detail in a series
The analysis of these favouring or hindering factors of background papers (ETC/RWM, 2008a‑h).
should help identify and single out the specific role Individual country/region papers present the
of landfill policy change compared to the influence objectives, the policy instruments introduced to
of the various other relevant factors. meet these objectives and the waste management
scene at the time of the transposition of the
The evaluation of the effectiveness of landfill policy Landfill Directive. Further, these papers include
in the present report uses the methodology set out an evaluation of the implemented policy and of
in a recent working paper by ETC/RWM (2008g). the Landfill Directive being a driver for landfill
In this methodology the causal link between diversion according to the methodology employing
a variety of favouring and hindering factors hindering and favouring factors. All background
(explanatory variables) and the diversion of waste papers are available from http://waste.eionet.europa.
from landfill (the dependent variable) is analysed. eu/publications.
Hindering and favouring factors are measured by
relevant indicators representing the state and the 3.2.1 Factors favouring and hindering the
change of the waste system at the time of policy effectiveness of landfill diversion policy
implementation. These factors are described in
more detail below and summarised in Table 3.1. The A policy for diverting waste from landfills can fully
reference indicator used to represent the dependent succeed only if the waste management system is
variable (diversion of waste from landfill) is the able to receive and manage the resulting waste
amount of biodegradable municipal waste landfilled flows. In particular, the 'maturity' of the system,
compared to the 1995 levels, for which the Landfill i.e. the existence of separate collection schemes and
Directive introduced specific targets. recovery capacity, and its responsiveness to landfill
diversion policy, can impact the effectiveness and
As the ETC/RWM study notes, country data the time‑frame of landfill policy. If the system is not
are currently inadequate to conduct a rigorous ready to manage the diverted waste flows, landfill
econometric modelling exercise. The analysis of policy cannot be effective and can even lead to
the influence of the various factors on diversion unintended effects (e.g. illegal dumping and export

Table 3.1 Factors influencing the effectiveness of a policy of diverting biodegradable

municipal waste from landfill
Favouring/hindering factors Influence on Justification of the +/‑ sign

diversion
Factors related to BMW landfill policy
Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC + Legal framework in place
transposed
Landfill tariffs/gate fees for BMW + High cost of landfill favours other treatment options
or MSW (excl. VAT and landfill
tax)
Landfill tax on BMW (or MSW) + High cost of landfill favours other treatment options
Prohibition of untreated waste in + Prohibition favours separate collection and pre‑treatment which
landfill discourages landfill and favours other treatment options
Selective ban on BMW + Quantity limitation by law sets up minimum diversion criteria
Factors related to waste production and collection
BMW generation per capita – High waste production requires many management options
Separate collection for BMW, split + Separate collection of biodegradable waste fractions is a basic
into the following fractions requirement for recycling
(if possible):
• paper and cardboard (incl.
newspapers etc.)
• kitchen, garden and wood
waste
• BMW in residual waste
'Full cost' collection tariffs or + Appropriate tariffs increase capacity to invest in separate
charges (excl. VAT and taxes) collection and recovery/recycling
Factors related to the landfill sector
Share of MSW landfilled (Eurostat + High pressure on capacity favours other treatment options
Structural Indicator)
Landfill residual capacity – High residual landfill capacities discourages diversion
(non‑hazardous waste)
Land per capita – Higher land availability makes land a less scarce resource and
decreases the cost of landfills
Factors related to the incineration sector
Share of MSW incinerated – Low incineration rate
(Eurostat Structural Indicator)
makes diversion more difficult
Dedicated incineration capacity + Available incineration capacity makes diversion easier
for MSW (available)
Other incineration capacity (e.g. + Other incineration capacity makes diversion easier, but requires
cement kilns, power plants, etc.) capacity for refuse‑derived fuel (RDF)
Incineration gate fees for MSW – Higher fees discourage incineration
(excl. VAT and incineration tax)
National policies on renewable + Progressive targets for renewable energy sources policies
energy sources stimulate energy from MSW
Factors related to the material recycling and recovery sector
Packaging and packaging waste + Diversion of biodegradable fraction of packaging waste
policy contributes to BMW diversion from landfills
MBT capacity + Available MBT capacity favours diversion
Compost capacity (i.e. input of + Available compost capacity favours diversion
biowaste)
Note: Positive influence = + (factor favouring diversion); negative influence = – (factor hindering diversion).

of untreated waste). If the system is responsive (waste generation, collection, recycling, incineration
because the needed capacity is available or created and landfilling) have been represented using
through rapid investment then landfill policy can be quantitative indicators in the six country studies
successful. (ETC/RWM, 2008a–f). In the present report, some
of these findings are discussed in the comparative
Therefore, the effectiveness analysis of landfill assessment (Chapter 10). Policy instruments such
diversion policy should take into consideration: as landfill taxes, landfill bans and waste collection
charges are also discussed in each of the country
• the features of the 'active' landfill diversion chapters of this report.
policy;
3.2.2 Waste generation factors that influence
• the factors — in both the landfill sector and the diversion from landfill
other parts of the waste system — that favour
and hinder diverting waste from landfill. Waste generation dictates the scale of the waste
management system and waste composition can
Some of these factors and their propensity to hinder influence the choice of management and recovery
or favour successful and effective waste diversion options. Both have important implications for the
are discussed below with reference to the waste effectiveness of landfill policy and both are driven
system parts depicted in Figure 3.1. These factors by economic and social variables.
Figure 3.1 A simplified sketch of a waste management system and the objectives of landfill
policy
Drivers
(GDP, consumption, etc.)
Less
Waste production
Illegal dumping
Collection
Export
Separate collection Unsorted waste
Material recovery/recycling
MBT/ Incineration More Landfill Less

Recycling Compost
RDF
Impact on
Material markets Energy markets
environment
Waste, materials, energy flows
Waste policy objectives
Note: MBT — Mechanical‑biological treatment; RDF — Refuse‑derived fuel.

A policy aiming to divert waste from landfill may be as other difficulties establishing alternative waste
more difficult in countries where waste generation management options.
is still increasing because of the need to create new
options and larger waste management capacities. In many countries, landfill is still a relatively cheap
Land use constraints can limit the expansion of disposal option. However as residual capacity
landfill capacity; however, regardless of the rate of becomes scarcer and technical‑environmental
waste generation, structural features (e.g. population requirements increase, gate fees are bound to rise.
density) can also be important. Specific (environmentally motivated) landfill taxes
can also increase the cost relative to other waste
Any progress in waste prevention can indirectly management options. The Landfill Directive's bans
help the effectiveness of a landfill diversion policy and limitations on specific waste streams could
by slowing down the inflow of waste into the free residual capacity and thereby lower the cost
system, whereas the composition of waste can for other waste streams but could also make the
influence policy effectiveness in complex and operation of many small landfills economically
unpredictable ways. unsustainable.
3.2.3 Waste collection factors that influence 3.2.5 Waste incineration factors that influence
diversion from landfill diversion from landfill
The characteristics of a waste collection system The use of incineration varies greatly from country
can be critical to the amount and type of waste to country. Incineration capacity can be important
flows directed either to landfill or to recovery in determining the volume of waste diverted from
options (incineration, material recovery, recycling). landfill to incineration. Limited incineration capacity
Well‑developed separate collection schemes can can constrain diversion, while expanding capacity
make waste diversion from landfill more effective. requires investment.
Charges for collecting and treating municipal waste If a very large share of total waste is incinerated then
can also be designed to favour separate collection. there will be limited scope for further expanding
The cost of waste collection services to waste incineration, particularly because some fractions of
producers can influence waste prevention, especially total waste composition are not suitable for energy
if the producers pay the 'full cost' of the service recovery. Nonetheless, lock‑in to the dominant
either via 'pay‑as‑you‑throw' schemes or other user technology may mean that incineration continues to
charges. Furthermore, the higher the cost of landfill be preferred to recycling.
(fees and taxes), the higher the incentive (net benefit)
to invest in separate collection that can feed recovery The Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC)
and recycling options. raised the technical and environmental standards
for incineration and is therefore expected to increase
3.2.4 Landfill capacity and cost factors that costs. These high costs could in turn hinder diversion
influence diversion from landfill from landfill. On the other hand, because incinerators
can generate power, high energy prices can incentivize
Constraints and bans on the types of waste that expanding capacity and redirecting waste flows to
may be landfilled (defined by waste streams and incineration. The renewable energy policies and high
composition), technical‑environmental requirements renewable energy source targets that Member States
for landfills and public opposition to landfill can are currently designing could create similar incentives
be important catalysts for diverting waste from because co‑incineration of separately collected
landfill. Furthermore, because few countries have biowaste is recognised as a renewable energy source.
programmes of landfill expansion, residual landfill
capacity can be important in determining the rate of 3.2.6 Material recovery and recycling factors that
diversion. Low residual capacity can accelerate the influence diversion from landfill
diversion process and vice versa.
Diversion of waste from landfill and, to some extent,
Countries with a high share of total waste landfilled from incineration depends to an important degree
probably have low residual capacity (if the technical on availability of separate waste collection schemes,
requirements of landfill policy constrain expansion), development of the industrial recovery and recycling
which would make a policy of diversion easier. On chain and implementation of national policies for each
the other hand, in such countries there can be a waste stream. These options and policies can influence
strong lock‑in to the dominant technology, as well the effectiveness of landfill diversion policy positively.

However, if these sectors and policies are already very and implementation processes surrounding them.
advanced or at saturation level (e.g. all packaging In this way the information from the interviews
policy targets have been achieved), then there will supplements the indicator‑based analysis.
be limited scope for further diverting of waste from
landfill to the recovery and recycling sectors. Thus, One way of analysing the process of policy design
their influence on the overall effectiveness of the and implementation is to review the course of
system might cease to be favourable. actions taken regarding the policy process and
objectives (upstream from the policy in place in
Table 3.1 presents a summary of the factors identified Figure 3.2) and regarding the implementation of
in as hindering or favouring diversion from landfill. the policy and the outcomes (downstream from the
For each factor an appropriate indicator was selected policy in place in Figure 3.2). By describing changes
(as detailed in ETC/RWM, 2008g). Some of the in waste management in terms of a series of actions
findings on the impacts of the different factors are over time it is possible to focus on the real actions
presented in the country chapters (Chapters 4–9) and and therefore choices made by authorities and other
the comparative analysis (Chapter 10). stakeholders, thus going beyond declarations of
intent.
3.3 Interviews with key stakeholders The context includes country‑specific features of
physical geography, demography, socio‑economics,
Issues such as institutional context and public political and administrative organisation and
acceptance of a particular instrument play an tradition. What works well in one country might not
important role in determining policy effectiveness. work well in another context.
In order to explore these, four to six interviews were
conducted in each country. The interviewees were selected by following the
course of action upstream and downstream from the
Examining the actions that occur in a policy area enactment of a policy, identifying authorities and
can provide a better understanding of why policy other stakeholders responsible for crucial actions
instruments were selected and why they have and choices. The interviewees include staff in public
functioned as they have. The interviews explored administration, waste management companies,
the internal logic of the instruments and the policy industry representatives and research institutions.
Figure 3.2 Policy effectiveness — from objectives to outcome
CONTEXT
Objectives Policy process Policies Implementation Outcome

in place process
Upstream Downstream

Estonia
4 Estonia

Box 4.1 Main elements and effectiveness of the Estonian strategy
• The Estonian waste strategy has focused on setting up schemes and building capacity for separate
collection. These schemes largely cover packaging waste, whereas others addressing collection of
biowaste are in an early stage.
• The national Waste Management Plan sets targets for the diversion of BMW from landfills and the
Waste Act (2004) introduced a ban on landfilling untreated waste. In most counties this has not yet
been implemented, however, due to lack of alternative waste treatment capacity.
• Estonia introduced a pollution charge for municipal waste disposal in 1990. Although low compared
to other European landfill tax rates, it has increased considerably over recent years.
• According to Eurostat data, Estonia has significantly reduced municipal waste landfilled, from 95 %
in 2000 to around 60 % in 2006. In 2005, the recovery rate was 24 %, and it appears that a further
16 % of generated waste is disposed of, exported or undergoes some other treatment (ETC/RWM,
2008a).
• The Ministry of Environment estimates that around 20 % of all households, mainly in rural areas,
lacked access to waste collection schemes in 2006.
4.1 Waste management situation National Environmental Strategy in 1995. These are
to prevent waste generation; to reduce generated
Private consumption in Estonia has been growing waste volumes and hazardous substances contained
at a pace similar to or faster than GDP (9.3 % in waste; and to increase quantities of recycled
in 2002 and 15.4 % in 2006) and this has put waste. The strategy set two benchmarks for
significant upwards pressure on waste generation. municipal waste: recycling half of generated waste
Generation of municipal waste (and thus BMW and stabilising waste generation at
which accounts for 65 % of municipal waste in 250–300 kilograms per person between 2000 and
Estonia) fluctuated in the period 1995–2001 and has 2010.
since increased.
The National Waste Management Plan 2003–2007
Until 1999 virtually all waste was landfilled focused on transposing EU waste legislation.
in Estonia. Since 2000, however, an increasing Estonia became an EU Member State in 2004. The
share of BMW has been diverted and by 2006 the Plan includes targets for various waste streams, as
landfill share had been reduced to 60 % (Eurostat well as defining the organisation and institutions of
Structural Indicators) (Figure 4.1). Some recycling waste management. In addition, it details the costs
schemes have been in operation for many years and of waste management and associated investments.
work well because they are now firmly rooted in Targets on landfilling BMW are defined as a
society, e.g. deposit schemes for glass and plastic percentage of the total municipal waste that is
and separate collection of paper. landfilled. Although this approach is different from
that of the Landfill Directive, which sets targets in
relation to the BMW produced in 1995, the national
4.2 Waste policy objectives targets are designed to guarantee implementation
of the directive. Estonia set its targets four years
The overall priorities for improving waste later than those prescribed in the Landfill Directive
management in Estonia were laid down in the using the provision granted to countries that put

Estonia
Figure 4.1 Management of biodegradable

4.3 Institutional context
municipal waste in Estonia
The Ministry of Environment is responsible for
1 000 tonnes
developing and implementing the National Waste
Management Plan and all other waste management
500 policies. The Ministry has 15 structural units at county
level. These county environmental authorities are
400
responsible for issuing permits and also, until recently,
for county‑level waste management planning. The
county environmental authorities therefore play a key
300 role in implementing waste legislation and relevant
action programmes at county level.
200 Municipalities are in charge of organising the

collection, transport and disposal of municipal waste.
In 2007, an amendment to the Waste Act (2004)
100
suspended county‑level waste management planning.
This move aimed to give more responsibilities to
0 the municipalities and stimulate them to pool their
resources and strengthen their human and financial
95
97
01
98
96
99
02
03
05
06
00
04
capacities for better waste management activities.

19
19
20
19
19
20
19
20
20
20
20
20
For example, it is compulsory for municipalities to

Recovered BMW Landfilled BMW
elaborate waste management plans but they can do
so in coordination with other municipalities to form a
Note: BMW calculated from data on MSW under the regional waste management plan.
assumption that BMW accounts for 65 % of MSW.
Source: Eurostat Structural Indicators and ETC/RWM, 2008a.
4.4 Policy instruments
more than 80 % of their collected municipal waste A pollution charge for municipal waste disposal
to landfill in 1995. The targets are stricter than — sometimes referred to as a landfill tax — was
those in the Landfill Directive, however, and will introduced in 1990. The charge is paid by landfill
remain realistic only if the planned incineration of operators and 75 % of the revenue goes to the local
municipal waste is implemented in coming years. budget of the waste generating municipality and
25 % to the state budget. Until 2005, the rate was
Rapid economic growth has made the prevention very low at EUR 0.10–0.20 per tonne. In 2006 it rose
targets in the National Environmental Strategy to EUR 7.8 per tonne and it will increase to EUR 10
impossible to achieve. The target in the National per tonne in 2009. So even though the charge is
Waste Management Plan was therefore revised and still low compared to other countries' landfill tax,
now aims to stabilise municipal waste generation the increase of the charge has been considerable.
per person at the 2005–2006 level. The recovery Moreover, the rate is twice as high (and will be
target has also been lowered to 30–40 %. Other three times as high from 2009) for landfills that do
aims of the Plan include stimulating efficient waste not comply with the Landfill Directive.
separation in the industrial and service sector,
providing guidance on sorting municipal waste Since 1991, municipalities have been able to
in households and providing municipal waste collect a charge from households and industry
collection services to all households and businesses. for managing municipal waste. The charge covers
all waste management costs and waste pollution
Targets for the period 2004–2010 require that at charges, and can be adjusted for inflation.
least 50 % of packaging waste be recovered and
at least 25 % recycled. In addition, at least 15 % of The Waste Act (2004) introduced a ban on
the total mass of each packaging material must be landfilling untreated waste (including mixed
recycled. After 2010, the targets increase to 60 % municipal waste). However, until 1 January 2008
recovery and 45 % recycling, with at least 15 % of it only applied to landfills in counties that had an
each packaging material recycled. established facility for treating municipal waste.

Estonia
In reality, only the landfills in the Harju County (in 194 are rural. The total number is higher than
Tallinn area) met this requirement. in countries of similar size, implying that the
average number of inhabitants per municipality
In April 2007, the city of Tallinn started collecting is relatively low. As a result, municipalities are
biodegradable kitchen waste separately. Buildings fragmented and often lack the human and financial
with more than five apartments must have a capacities to deal with their waste management
separate container, as must offices producing responsibilities.
more than 25 kilograms of BMW per week. The
city regulation was adopted to help meet the The pollution charge for municipal waste disposal
Estonian targets on BMW. In the first few months is one of the most important and controversial
implementation was poor but it is expected to waste policy instruments in Estonia. Policy‑makers
improve over time. There has not been any tradition at the Ministry of Environment and the Estonian
in this type of separate collection and uptake is Waste Management Association were not in
therefore expected to be slow. Public awareness favour of the instrument, instead supporting the
campaigns are needed to bring about a change in introduction of a local waste management tax in
mentality. 2003. That was not possible, however, because
introducing a new tax was and still is contrary to
the government's economic programme.
4.5 Observations on effectiveness
When the pollution charge was introduced at the
The National Waste Management Plan aims to beginning of 1990 it was collected by the state.
provide all households and other waste producers After 2004, it was decided to return 75 % of the
with a municipal waste management service. revenue from the charge to the municipalities
The Waste Act (1998) obliged municipalities to where the waste is collected, partially to
organise waste collection systems but it was not secure a steady source of funding for the waste
very efficient. A lack of concrete rules and time management activities of local authorities.
schedules meant that most municipalities did not Unfortunately, this creates a disincentive for
organise collection systems. The Waste Act (2004) starting large‑scale recovery operations because
was much more explicit in this respect, including municipalities would lose revenues when
a special chapter about procedures. The obligation reducing landfilling. Another drawback of the
to establish a collection scheme has attracted much charge is that it is relatively rigid and cannot be
criticism from both the general population and adjusted by municipalities. On the positive side,
municipalities but the Ministry of Environment it channels significant amounts of money to the
maintains a firm stand on this part of the new Environmental Investment Centre, which funds
legislation. environmental projects, including ones addressing
waste. The amount of revenue raised from the
The Ministry of Environment estimates that 20 % of disposal charge differs significantly between
all households (10 % in towns and up to 80 % in some municipalities and depends on several factors such
rural areas) did not have regular waste collection in as waste generation per capita and the extent of
2006. These households dealt with waste by either organised waste collection among the population
bringing it to containers in other dwellings or public as a whole.
containers, burning it at home or dumping it illegally
in forests. There is a particular problem with the The closing of old landfills, which was quite
summer houses and small enterprises around Tallinn, successful, was also funded partially through
as they are not covered by a collection system. the Environmental Investment Centre and the
Waste from these premises often ends in the forest. pollution charge. Encouragingly, the charge is
Furthermore, approximately 60–80 % of households planned to increase in the years until 2010–2011,
do not have access to a separate collection scheme for making recycling and recovery operations more
garden waste. Improvements in collection systems attractive and making it easier for Estonia to reach
may result in increasing waste generation figures, its recycling targets. The fact that the charge is
which in this case would be a positive sign in terms twice as high for old, non‑compliant landfills
of pressures on the environment because the waste creates an additional pressure to close them.
would then be managed properly instead of being Fly‑tipping (i.e. illegal dumping of waste) is a
burnt at home or ending up in forests. side‑effect of such closures although fly‑tipping
primarily arises because many municipalities
Estonia has a relatively large number of have not yet fully met their legal obligation to
municipalities (227). Of these 33 are urban and join the systems of organised waste collection

Estonia
and transport. In fact, the old, small, uncontrolled The recycling rate of packaging is increasing as a
landfills themselves constituted fly‑tipping and result of policies on packaging and packaging waste
dumping sites from an environmental point of and is therefore perceived to be one of the strongest
view. factors favouring diversion of municipal waste from
landfill.
Until early 2007 tenders for waste collection and
transportation systems could not be organised
for areas with more than 10 000 inhabitants. This
inflated prices for such services because there Figure 4.2 Separate collection of
were no economies of scale. The ceiling has been biodegradable waste fractions in
increased to 30 000 inhabitants, which should make Estonia
collection cheaper.
Kg per capita
Because of the relatively cold climate, Estonian 40

authorities look favourably on the production of
heat from waste incineration, and the construction
of three incineration facilities is currently being 30
considered. Incineration of waste could replace heat
produced from oil shale, which would also have a net
positive environmental effect. This is because part of
waste‑generated fuel can be considered as renewable 20
fuel (unlike oil shale). It would also decrease the

dependency on Russian gas imports. It is therefore
probable that one or more of the incineration projects 10
that are currently under consideration will be
implemented.
0
Estonia does not have a long history of collecting 2005
biodegradable waste fractions separately, apart
from waste paper collection. Available figures show Wood
that in 2005 paper and cardboard was by far the Bio-waste (kitchen and garden)
largest stream collected separately, accounting for Paper (mixed, newspapers)
19 kilograms of paper waste and 14 kilograms of

Paper and board packaging
cardboard packaging per capita. The total amount

of biodegradable waste collected was just below
40 kilograms per capita and is shown in Figure 4.2. Source: ETC/RWM, 2008a.

Finland
5 Finland
Box 5.1 Main elements and effectiveness of the Finnish strategy
• In the 1990s the Finnish strategy for diverting biodegradable waste away from landfills focused
mainly on recycling, including composting and anaerobic digestion. Unfortunately, the Finnish
climate and the different composition of biodegradable municipal waste compared to other
EU Member States led to technical problems for composting plants.
• Municipalities are responsible only for ensuring that sufficient capacity is available for treating
municipal waste but not for guaranteeing capacity for particular types of treatment. As a result,
municipalities can fulfil their responsibility by providing landfill capacity.
• From 2000 to 2005 the focus shifted towards co‑incineration but when co‑incineration plants were
required to meet the stricter emission standards set by the EU Waste Incineration Directive, the use
of municipal waste fractions became economically unattractive. The new Waste Plan 2008 focuses
more on dedicated incineration plants combined with co‑incineration.
• In 2000–2005 landfilling of municipal waste has remained nearly constant at around 60 %.
5.1 Waste management situation 5.2 Waste policy objectives
The total generation of biodegradable municipal In 1998 Finland drafted its first Waste Plan, which
waste fell in 2001 and has stayed relatively stable defined a set of targets to be met in 2005. The
notwithstanding a slight increase in 2004. Finland Ministry of the Environment revised the Plan in
has landfilled around 60 % of its biodegradable 2002. Both the original and revised Plans set high
municipal waste since 1995 (Figure 5.1). Before the targets for recovering waste.
Landfill Directive was implemented, landfilling
was relatively cheap. In the sparsely populated The Waste Plan 2002 also set a target on preventing
parts of the country, land is inexpensive and waste generation. Specifically, it provided that
suitable locations for landfills are not difficult to the amount of municipal waste generated in 2005
find. This situation has changed since 2007 when should be at least 15 % lower than the level that
Finnish landfills were required to meet the technical would have been anticipated based on the volume
requirements in the Landfill Directive — two years of waste in 1994 and real growth in GDP.
before the 2009 deadline.
For biodegradable waste the Waste Plan 1998
Incineration gained a bad reputation in the 1970s targeted 75 % recovery through composting and
so when the Finnish EPA in 1991 suggested anaerobic digestion by 2005. In the Waste Plan
a combination of incineration and biological 2002, however, the target was changed so that by
treatment, politicians were not in favour. Instead, 2010 municipal waste could only be landfilled if at
they decided to promote waste prevention and least 80 % of the organic matter in the waste had
recycling. been removed. In other words, the target was to
landfill a maximum of 20 % of the biodegradable
Currently, around 35 % of biodegradable municipal waste generated. For waste paper the Waste Plan
waste is recycled and some 2–5 % is incinerated. 1998 set a target of 75 % recovery and this target
There has been a slight increase in separate was increased to 80 % recovery, to be achieved by
collection since 2002 at the expense of incineration. 2005, in the Waste Plan 2002.

Finland
Figure 5.1 Management of biodegradable households, select a waste collector and pay
municipal waste in Finland the collector directly for both collection and
treatment. In the latter case, the municipality
1 000 tonnes sets the conditions, including a maximum
price for collection, and the waste producers
2 500 have no contractual link with the municipality.
Nonetheless, responsibility for municipal waste
2 000
remains with the municipality. Until 1 June 2007,
municipalities were also responsible for organising
the management of household‑like waste from
1 500 enterprises but that responsibility has been
transferred to the enterprises so they are now free
1 000 to contract a waste collector.
Because many municipalities are small,

500
fragmented and sparsely populated, policy‑makers
realised in 1993 that municipalities would manage
0 waste better if they united to form inter‑municipal
companies. By 2000, 65 % of municipalities
4
0
6
5
03
02
01
5
(covering 80 % of Finland's population) cooperated

0
0
9
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
in such companies. There is no legal obligation to

Recovered BMW (material or energy) cooperate but it enables municipalities to establish
Landfilled BMW treatment capacity that would otherwise be more
costly and take advantage of economies of scale.
Source: Statistics Finland, 2007.
The Ministry of the Environment draws up a

The national strategy for reducing biodegradable national waste plan and presents targets and
waste going to landfills 2006–2016, which was the possible measures. The municipalities are
issued in 2004, sets BMW generation targets not obliged to develop local waste management
for 2006, 2009 and 2016 measured by weight. plans that transform the national plan into
The strategy also specifies that an additional local conditions and this may weaken political
600 000 tonnes of treatment capacity at regional and administrative commitment. The only
level is needed by 2009 and 900 000 tonnes by 2016. 'decentralised plans' are made by the 13 regional
environment centres, which are under the
In April 2008 the government adopted a new authority of the Ministry of the Environment but
Waste Plan, which aims to reduce landfilling of these plans are not binding on municipalities.
municipal waste to around 20 % by 2016. By the Furthermore, Finnish legislation does not require
same deadline, municipal waste generation should that municipalities introduce separate collection
be stabilised at 2000 levels. Half of this should be schemes for BMW.
recycled and 30 % should be incinerated. The plan
also aims to increase composting and production
of biogas from organic wastes (Ends Europe, 2008). 5.4 Policy instruments
Finland joined the EU in 1995. During the

5.3 Institutional context preparation for the EU membership Finland was
able to take into account both existing and expected
Finland has 416 municipalities, which are EU legislation, for example the EU Landfill
self‑governing units with considerable local Directive, when debating future Finnish waste
autonomy, including the right to levy taxes. For legislation.
many years Finland has had a special system
for collecting municipal waste. According to the As the overall framework of the EU Landfill
Waste Act (1993), municipalities are responsible Directive was debated and enacted in the period
for organising municipal waste collection and 1993–1999, the Finnish government incorporated the
have two options for doing so. They can either directive's anticipated requirements in new policy
outsource the collection to private companies instruments on diverting waste from landfills. Thus,
or require that waste producers, including several instruments were introduced before the

Finland
adoption of the Landfill Directive and even prior to directive's strict emissions standards. This
Finland's first Waste Plan in 1998. caused a decline in demand for Refuse‑Derived
Fuel (RDF). Rising energy prices until mid‑2008
The government introduced a landfill tax for increased demand for RDF once again and in
municipal landfills in 1996 at a level of EUR 15 per 2007 the capacity for co‑incineration was around
tonne of waste. It has raised it twice since and from 300 000 tonnes of waste. Still, RDF is only partly
2005 it stands at EUR 30 per tonne. It seems that the made of municipal waste.
tax has helped divert heavier waste streams such as
construction and demolition waste but has had less The Waste Plan from 2008 focusses on establishing
effect on BMW and municipal waste. Compared to dedicated incineration plants combined with
landfill tax levels in other Member States, the tax is co‑incineration in about 10 energy production
relatively low. plants. As a result, between 27 % and 42 % of BMW
(and municipal waste) will be incinerated with energy
The government also introduced a producer recovery in the future. This move should allow
responsibility system for waste paper in January Finland to meet the Landfill Directive's 2009 target of
1999. For packaging waste, industry is responsible landfilling at least 50 % less BMW than was generated
for managing up to 61 % of the waste and in 1995.
municipalities are responsible for the remaining
39 %. Separate collection of biodegradable waste fractions
has increased by 18 % since 2002. Seventy‑one per
The government enacted a landfill ban for certain cent of paper waste (e.g. newspapers and printed
waste streams partly as a result of the EU's debate paper) is recycled — among the highest rates in
on the Landfill Directive. The ban prohibits Europe.
landfilling biodegradable waste 'from which the
major part of the biodegradable waste has not Independent of strategy and policy focus, efforts to
been collected separately'. The wording is rather divert waste from landfill have faced problems due
vague and does not refer to the aim of removing to a lack of clarity in targets and responsibilities for
a minimum of 80 % organic matter before waste building BMW recovery capacity. Municipalities
is landfilled, which features in the country's
Waste Plan 2002. As a result, it leaves room for
interpretation of what 'the major part' is. Although, Figure 5.2 Separate collection of
the 2002 Waste Plan provided that more detailed biodegradable waste fractions in
restrictions for the landfill of biodegradable Finland
waste would be passed in 2003, this was not
implemented till 2006. Kg per capita
140
5.5 Observations on effectiveness 120
Finland's policies and strategies for diverting 100

biodegradable waste from landfills have shifted
focus in recent years. In the 1990s the focus was 80
initially on recycling, including composting and
anaerobic digestion, and there was no political 60
support for incineration with energy recovery. This
strategy proved problematic because the Finnish 40
climate, combined with a different composition
of BMW compared to other EU Member States, 20
caused technical problems at composting plants.
0
From 2000 to 2005 the focus shifted towards
4
6
5
03
02
0
20
20
20
20
20
co‑incineration (using waste as a fuel substitute

in an industrial or power plant). The need for Wood waste
co‑incineration plants to meet Waste Incineration Organic waste
Directive standards meant that costs exceeded
benefits, however, especially because of the Paper and cardboard waste
additional expenditures needed to meet the Source: Statistics, Finland 2007.

Finland
are responsible only for ensuring that sufficient and combined with clear targets for recovery and
capacity is available for treating municipal waste, recycling, it has produced good results in diverting
not for guaranteeing capacity for particular types of waste from landfills. Good examples are tyres and
treatment. As a result, municipalities can fulfil their waste paper.
responsibility by providing landfill capacity.
Where the responsibility has been divided between
When municipalities decide to allow households to different actors or when the target in the legislation
select their own private waste collectors, it can be is worded loosely, as in the prescriptions on
difficult for the municipality to monitor the waste permitted amounts of BMW deposited at landfills,
streams and to ensure that the necessary treatment it seems as to take much longer time to achieve
capacity is available. Indeed, because enterprises are the desired results. Although Finland drew up
accountable for managing their household‑like waste, national waste plans and set high recovery targets,
in those cases municipalities may only be responsible they were not supported by a clear division
for the MSW of public utilities, e.g. schools and of responsibilities and sufficient action. More
hospitals. waste might have been diverted from landfill
if the government had introduced a regulation
The shared responsibility for packaging waste on separate collection or more incentive‑based
has also been difficult to implement because instruments.
conflict exists between producer organisations and
municipalities due to unclear responsibilities. Finally, Finnish stakeholder have concluded that
the targets in the EU Landfill Directive on diverting
Where the responsibility for managing a waste biodegradable waste away from landfill will be very
stream — including planning, collecting, providing difficult to reach without giving an important role to
treatment capacity and financing — is very clear incineration with energy recovery in Finland.

Flemish Region of Belgium
6 Flemish Region of Belgium

Box 6.1 Main elements and effectiveness of the Flemish strategy
• To reduce the amount of residual waste sent to landfill, Flanders promotes separate collection of
waste and home composting and aims to make maximum use of existing incineration capacity.
• These measures are implemented pursuant to the Waste Plan, which is a powerful instrument
because once approved by the Region's government its provisions apply to all public authorities.
• Other prominent instruments include a set of voluntary agreements with municipalities,

communication activities on separate collection and home composting, an increasing landfill tax and
a ban on landfilling and incinerating certain waste streams such as unsorted household waste.
• Landfilling of household waste started to decrease in 1996 and by 2006 the Flemish Region had
reduced landfilling to around 1 % of total household waste generation.
6.1 Waste management situation • to regulate waste management policy in

accordance with the waste hierarchy.
The first priority in Flemish waste policy has
been to close or improve many local dumping The Waste Plan 1997 included a target for separate
sites created in the early 1960s and 1970s. In an collection of household waste and a set of
area as densely populated as the Flemish Region, targets on the generation of residual waste. More
disamenities from dumping sites were considered waste was diverted from landfill than originally
a major problem and thus of political concern. expected, however, so these targets were raised in
The Waste Plan 1986 aimed to close and improve the Waste Plan 2003.
landfills, making maximum use of existing
incineration capacity and starting the first separate By 2007 the aim was therefore to achieve a separate
collection of municipal waste. The second plan collection rate of 69 % of household waste and
from 1991 focused on further improving separate to reduce the average residual waste generation
collection and preventing waste generation. to 150 kilograms per capita between 2003 and
2006. Less stringent targets per capita were set
Since 1995 the amount of waste landfilled has individually for every municipality. For waste
decreased considerably and it seems that the decline paper, in 1998 a target was set to recycle 85 % by
has been matched by a corresponding increase in 2001.
separate collection of household waste for recycling.
The amount of waste incinerated has remained The Waste Plan 2003 also includes the following
almost constant (Figure 6.1). target on prevention: 'By 2007, the collected
amount of municipal waste should be reduced
by 13 % compared to 2000, taking into account
6.2 Waste policy objectives an annual autonomous increase of 2 % as a result
of the growth in population and economy if no
The Region's objectives for waste management are: measures are taken' (Parent et al., 2004).
• to protect public health and the environment

from the harmful influence of waste; 6.3 Institutional context
• to prevent raw materials becoming waste In 1980, the national Belgian Parliament started
materials; transferring responsibility for a number

Figure 6.1 Management of household waste

up waste management plans covering all waste
in the Flemish Region of Belgium generated (household, commercial and hazardous
waste).
1 000 tonnes
4 000 The Flemish municipal authorities are responsible for
collecting and treating all household waste generated
3 500 within their municipality. This responsibility
includes the obligation to draw up regulations
3 000 for waste collection and management within the
framework at the regional level. Since 1980, almost
2 500 all municipalities cooperate in inter‑municipal
associations to establish the infrastructure for waste
2 000 collection and treatment. There are 27 inter‑municipal
associations on waste.
1 500
1 000 6.4 Policy instruments
500 The Flemish Region has introduced a series of policy

instruments to reduce landfilling, increase recycling
0
and prevent waste generation through home
composting.
5
91
93
95
97
01
03
0
9
19
20
19
19
19
20
20
19
Pretreatment
The first Flemish Waste Decree (1981, amended
Incineration
1994) regulates the preparation of waste plans.
Recycling
The provisions of the waste plans apply to the
Landfilling administrative governments of the Flemish Region,
Note: Figures on the management of biodegradable waste the provinces, municipalities and public or private
over the period are not available. institutions who carry out tasks on environmental
Source: Statistics Flemish Region. policy. Several waste plans followed each other
covering usually 4–5 years, the first one covering the
years 1986–1990. The main focus of these plans moved
of policy areas to the three regions: the from closing and improving landfills, via setting up
Brussels Capital Region, the Flemish Region, and improving separate collection towards waste
and the Walloon Region. The first policy areas to prevention.
be transferred related to the territory, including
certain aspects of environment and water Since the 1980s, households and other waste
policy (e.g. waste collection and treatment, and producers have paid a charge to their municipality
environmental enforcement). In 1988 more policy to finance waste management operations. Costs
areas followed, including waste policy (except not covered by the charge are financed by income
waste transit, import and export, and nuclear taxes, producer responsibility systems or subsidies
waste) and environmental permits. In 1993, from the Flemish government. To date, virtually all
responsibility for waste import and export (except municipalities have introduced 'pay‑as‑you‑throw'
nuclear waste, product standard setting and waste schemes in combination with a low flat‑rate tax on
transit) was transferred. Thus, the responsibilities all households, using a specific obligatory household
of the national government are limited to product refuse bag or more complex collection systems with
standards, nuclear waste and negotiation and chipped bins that are weighed during collection.
implementation of international obligations.
In the late 1980s the Flemish Region had success
The three regions have widespread political with a policy of subsidising recycling centres,
autonomy and each is responsible for implementing composting plants and incinerators, which helped
waste management legislation and policy. In stimulate major investments, particularly in small
the Flemish Region, the Public Waste Agency of municipalities. As a result, the Region's Ministry of
Flanders (OVAM) is responsible for preparing and Environment decided to continue with the subsidy
implementing waste management legislation and for policy by developing a voluntary environmental
supervising the achievement of waste management agreement with the municipalities. Those
objectives. The regions are responsible for setting municipalities that sign the environmental agreement

receive a subsidy for waste management measures, because of its large volume and the resulting
which is partly linked to the meeting of certain impact on the municipal waste budgets. The first
targets within a time period, as laid down in the two producer responsibility agreements have been
environmental agreement. Subsidies are only given made with the printed advertisement sector and
for activities that go beyond legal requirements. with the informative press. Both agreements are
Since 1992 a series of such agreements have been of financial nature only. Producer responsibility
issued, reflecting the respective objectives and has also been introduced for packaging waste.
measures laid down in the waste plans for the same Producers that put products in single‑use
time periods. packaging on the market are responsible for
dealing with the packaging when it becomes waste.
A waste disposal levy was introduced in 1990,
which was relatively low. Between 1993 and 1997,
however, the levy for landfilling was raised by 6.5 Observations on effectiveness
260 % to EUR 54 per tonne. A lower rate applies
for incineration without energy recovery of waste The Flemish Region has one of Europe's highest
and far lower rates apply for incineration with recycling rates. In 2004, 71 % of household
energy recovery. The levy is also differentiated for waste was collected separately and only 4 % was
household and industrial waste. Separately collected landfilled. Likewise, around 40 % of the population
recyclable waste streams are exempted from the is engaged in composting at home. More than
levy. The revenue from the levy enters the general 200 kilograms biodegradable waste per capita
budget of the Flemish Region, although part of it is collected separately (Figure 6.2). In general,
finances the municipal environmental agreements. it seems that most of the targets of the Waste
Management Plan 2003–2007 have been met.
Municipalities can decide whether to collect only
garden waste or all biowaste (garden, vegetable Other interesting outcomes of Flemish waste policy
and fruit waste). If they choose to collect garden are that it has helped bring about broad public
waste only, they must introduce an intensive acceptance of the need to spend time and money
scheme to promote home composting of biowaste. separating and composting waste; that concerns
The Flemish Compost Organisation (VLACO) was about waste management and littering rank high
established in 1992 as a separate, independent on the political agenda; and that some of the
organisation in cooperation between OVAM, initiatives are more far‑reaching than those seen
the waste inter‑municipal associations, private elsewhere in Europe.
compost producers and some cities. VLACO is
responsible for coordinating the implementation of Several policy instruments were introduced very
systems to collect and manage kitchen and garden early (before 1993) and most measures were
waste, monitoring the quality of the compost and introduced before the Landfill Directive was issued
promoting sales. VLACO initiated the Compost in 1999. Diversion of waste from landfills started
Masters Programme, whereby volunteers provide in the early 1990s and already in 1995 only 29 % of
information to neighbours and others on how to the BMW generated was landfilled. The Landfill
compost biowaste. At the same time they act as a Directive therefore did not play a significant role in
link between the municipality and citizens. catalysing the introduction of these measures.
Due to land scarcity and the policy of diverting The Waste Plan is a key policy instrument because
waste from landfill, the Minister of Environment once approved by the government its provisions
decided in 1993 not to establish new landfill sites. apply to all public authorities. All relevant parties
A few years later, the Minister decided to limit are involved in the process of preparing a Waste
incineration capacity. Since 1998, only waste that Plan. As a result, it is a powerful instrument for the
cannot be prevented, recycled or incinerated may Flemish government to steer the development.
be landfilled.
The environmental agreements with municipalities
The Flemish Region's Waste Decree was revised in and their quid pro quo nature motivate
1994 to include, among other things, international municipalities to go further than the targets
obligations and a new instrument: the 'duty set in the Waste Plan. With more than 80 % of
of acceptance', which provides for producer municipalities signing agreements, participation
responsibility, meaning that producers have to take is very high. It has declined since the agreements
back waste arising from their products. Producer were first launched, however, because the design
responsibility was implemented for waste paper of the agreements has become steadily more

complex, more administration is necessary to notably the landfill and incineration levies. The
document that requirements have been met and Flemish government uses around 40 % of the
the subsidy only partly covers additional costs for revenue from the levy to finance the subsidies of
the municipalities resulting from the agreements. the environmental agreements.
Still, it is remarkable that a relatively low subsidy,
averaging EUR 22 000 per municipality, seems able Communication that alters citizens' behaviour has
to motivate municipalities to introduce collection played a leading role in achieving high recycling
systems and facilities faster than defined in the rates. For example, VLACO has observed that it
Waste Plan. is important to work actively to keep awareness
levels high. If information activities are reduced,
The total cost of managing household waste is awareness drops and the quality of separately
important for municipalities (and inter‑municipal collected waste fractions worsens. Also, the target
associations) and many initiatives have therefore for residual waste (measured in kilograms/capita)
been undertaken to reduce or offset costs, has been easy to communicate to the public.
Figure 6.2 Separate collection of biodegradable waste fractions in the Flemish Region of
Belgium
Kg per capita
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Green waste
Vegetable, fruit and garden
Paper and cardboard
Note: Municipalities are required to organise separate collection of either biowaste or garden waste (in combination with home
composting of biowaste).
Source: Statistics Flemish Region.

Germany
7 Germany
Box 7.1 Main elements and effectiveness of the German strategy
• The German strategy focuses on separate collection and recycling of secondary raw materials (paper
and biowaste), pre‑treatment of mixed household waste in mechanical‑biological treatment plants
and dedicated incineration with energy recovery of mixed household waste.
• The separate collection schemes have been successful in achieving very high recycling rates.
• A ban on landfilling waste with an organic content of more than 3 % was adopted already in
1993 but due to several loopholes it was not implemented properly. The loopholes were closed
with the Waste Landfilling Ordinance (2001), which re‑established a deadline of 1 June 2005
for implementing the landfill ban. Special limit values for the organic content of waste that has
undergone mechanical‑biological treatment were introduced. Since the deadline, the amount of
municipal waste landfilled has fallen to 1 %.
• The German federal states have selected different pre‑treatment strategies for municipal waste.
Some have chosen to reduce the organic content of waste mainly by means of mechanical‑biological
treatment. Others have focused more on waste incineration in dedicated incinerators.
7.1 Waste management situation recovery, depending on which is better for the
environment. Objectives for managing municipal
In the mid‑1960s the national government and the waste also focus on avoiding contamination of
federal states started to analyse waste disposal waste and ensuring treatment and landfilling of
and disseminated the findings to municipalities, waste that is not recovered.
which were responsible for disposing of municipal
waste. Due to a substantial increase in industrial The two main biodegradable municipal waste
production and private consumption, waste fractions are paper waste (including packaging
generation grew rapidly at the beginning of the paper and cardboard) and biowaste from
1970s. At that time, waste was primarily disposed of households and municipal services. The strategy
in 50 000 small dumpsites and interest concentrated for reducing biodegradable waste going to landfills
on them and the need to build appropriate waste comprises collecting both fractions separately;
management facilities. recovering paper waste; composting or anaerobic
biological treatment of biowaste; and limiting the
In the 1990s Germany was among the first European organic content of landfilled waste.
countries to introduce policies to limit landfilling.
Measures included schemes for collecting packaging In 1999, the German government committed itself
waste, biowaste and waste paper separately. As to recovering all municipal waste completely
a result, by 1995 Germany already recycled a by 2020, so that landfilling of municipal waste
relatively large proportion of municipal waste and and waste treatment residues will not longer
landfilled approximately 40 %. be necessary. This is an ambitious objective
and includes, for example, recovering waste
incineration residues and further developing
7.2 Waste policy objectives treatment technologies such as sorting and MBT.
German waste policy follows the EU's waste Except for recycling targets for packaging waste,
hierarchy, with prevention as the first priority, very few quantitative targets have been set at
followed by material recovery and energy federal levels. Those that exist generally apply to

Germany
paper and cardboard. In addition to the targets of The first step was an administrative regulation
the 2004 Packaging Directive, the paper industry (TASi) in 1993, which limited the organic content
has committed itself to recycle around 80 % of in waste going to landfills to less than 3 % total
waste paper in a voluntary agreement. organic carbon (TOC). Achieving such a low
organic content necessitated thermal treatment
of the waste. In the debate on the regulation, the
7.3 Institutional context most controversial issue was whether biological
treatment processes could also be appropriate
Germany is a federal republic made up of sixteen pre‑treatment methods before landfilling. The
federal states (Bundesländer). Responsibility for debate concluded that incineration should be the
waste management and environmental protection only pre‑treatment method but it was agreed to
is shared between the national government, the extend the transition period from 8 to 12 years so
federal states and the local authorities. the final deadline would be 1 June 2005. The aim
was to allow enough time to establish treatment
The national Ministry of Environment sets capacity especially in the federal states formerly
priorities, participates in the enactment of laws situated in East Germany. Moreover, it was agreed
and oversees strategic planning, information and to permit exemptions in exceptional cases to allow
public relations and defines requirements for some flexibility. Finally, the Bundesrat (the body at
waste facilities. Each federal state adopts its own which the federal states are represented) called on
waste management act containing supplementary the Ministry of Environment to define the criteria
regulations to the national law, e.g. concerning for environmentally sound landfilling of residues
regional waste management concepts and rules from mechanical‑biological treatment.
on requirements for disposal. There is no national
waste management planning in Germany. Instead, Some federal states then expanded their
each federal state develops a waste management incineration capacity to meet the provisions of the
plan for its area. TASi, whereas others invested in MBT as the main
pre‑treatment method and made use of extensive
According to the producer responsibility principle, exemptions from the provisions.
which is a core tenet of German waste legislation,
the producer of a product generally still has A research programme was set up to investigate
responsibility for the product when it becomes MBT as an appropriate pre‑treatment method
waste. However, this principle has been specified before landfilling and it was concluded that in
only for some product types such as packaging principle, thermal treatment of municipal waste
and waste electric and electronic equipment. For should be applied to municipal waste, but that
waste generated by households, the Recycling MBT might be used as an alternative disposal route
Management and Waste Act assigns responsibility provided certain additional criteria were met.
to the local public waste disposal authorities
(in most federal states these are the districts and The national government therefore enacted two
towns). Their responsibility covers collecting ordinances in 2001 and 2002: the Waste Landfilling
and transporting waste, measures to promote Ordinance aimed to close the loopholes in the 1993
waste prevention and recovery, and planning, administrative regulation and the Ordinance on
constructing and operating waste disposal facilities. Landfills and Long‑term Storage transposed the
Municipalities have more practical tasks such as technical parts of the Landfill Directive that were
providing sites for waste collection. not already implemented in German legislation.
The Ordinance on Landfills and Long‑term
Storage fixed the transition period to 1 June 2005
7.4 Policy instruments and allowed landfilling residues of MBT with
an organic content above 3 %. In addition, strict
7.4.1 Organic content of waste sent to landfill technical standards for MBT were introduced,
resulting in treatment costs similar to incineration.
One of the key means of diverting waste from As a supporting measure, an amendment of the
landfills is limiting the organic content of landfilled Recycling Management and Waste Act introduced
waste. A landfill ban was introduced to achieve a simplified permit procedure for waste treatment
this goal. It was introduced in two steps and using facilities other than landfills in order to enable
three pieces of legislation because the initial statute federal states to establish pre‑treatment capacity
contained severe loopholes. faster.

Germany
7.4.2 Separate collection of paper and biowaste pre‑treatment method before landfilling. A waste
disposal authority in Rhineland‑Palatinate
Separate collection of biowaste and paper is also challenged the Waste Landfilling Ordinance
regulated mainly through legislative measures. In because it judged its provisions to be too strict in
1983 the Federal State of Hesse initiated separate comparison to the Landfill Directive. The German
collection of biowaste to divert waste from landfill. court considering the case sought the opinion of the
Between 1985 and 1993 the number of inhabitants European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the matter. The
with a collection system for biowaste increased ECJ decided that the Ordinance was in compliance
from 400 000 to 7.6 million. Intervention at national with the EU Landfill Directive and that stricter
level came in 1993 with TASi, which requires the rules could be applied.
competent waste authorities to set up separate
collection schemes for biowaste from households Opposition to the acceptance of MBT as a valid
and garden waste from public parks. pre‑treament method also came from some of
the federal states that had complied with the
According to the Commercial Waste Ordinance, provisions of the TASi and relied only on thermal
biodegradable waste, as well as other secondary pre‑treatment.
raw materials (e.g. paper) from commercial
activities, has to be separated at source and As Figure 7.1 clearly shows, landfilling of
recovered. (untreated) municipal waste has almost ceased,
with only 1 % landfilled in 2006. After its
Packaging waste is regulated by the Packaging acceptance, MBT capacity has increased from
Ordinance (1991), which introduced producer 2 million tonnes in 2000 to nearly 5 million tonnes
responsibility. In this case, that implies that in 2005. The residues of MBT treatment are
producers and retailers are obliged to take back different waste fractions, which are then recycled,
used packages and to contribute to their further incinerated or landfilled.
management. The implementation of this ordinance
led to the 'Green dot' system.
In Germany, waste collection charges on Figure 7.1 Management of municipal waste

households have to cover the full cost of collection in Germany
and management of waste. Such tariffs vary
between municipalities, depending on the waste 1 000 tonnes
management situation and the service offered to 60 000

citizens.
50 000

40 000
7.5.1 Organic content of landfilled waste

30 000
The implementation of the TASi was inadequate
for a number of reasons. First, administrative 20 000
regulations are targeted only at competent
authorities and not at bodies outside the
10 000
administration. Second, the competent authorities
in federal states made wide use of permitted
exemptions from the landfill ban, which were 0
supposed to be used only in exceptional cases.
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
Finally, the regulation had allowed for a long

20
19
20
19
20
20
19
19
19
20
20
20
transition period and by using the exemption rule, Estimated recovery

the competent authorities even managed to extend
Incineration
the transition period. These loopholes meant that

the legislation was legally in place but not fully Landfill
implemented in practice. Note: Recovery is estimated as municipal waste generation

minus municipal waste landfilled and incinerated.
The Waste Landfilling Ordinance (2001) Recovery therefore includes MBT.
closed these loopholes and allowed MBT as a Source: Calculated on the basis of Eurostat Structural Indicators.

Germany
Commercial waste and residues of waste treatment waste in the residual waste stream. Separately
facilities (sorting plants, MBT plants) also have collected paper waste and biowaste show almost the
to be pre‑treated before landfilling if they do not same development: a strong increase from 1990 to
comply with the minimum requirements. This has 2000, when quantities quadrupled from 2 to 8 million
led to a bottleneck of treatment capacity, which has tonnes. Since then saturation has led to relatively
been solved partly through intermediate storage of stable quantities being collected.
waste. After a given period of time the waste has to
be removed from the storage and treated according In 2005 around 190 kilograms of biodegradable
to the legal requirements. waste was collected per person, including waste from
public parks. Paper is the largest waste stream and it
7.5.2 Separate collection of paper and biowaste increased from 20 to 96 kilograms per capita between
1990 and 2005. In the same period, the collection of
Separate collection of biodegradable waste has biowaste from households rose by 30 kilograms per
realised a considerable decrease in biodegradable capita to 46 kilograms per capita (Figure 7.2).
Figure 7.2 Separate collection of biodegradable waste fractions in Germany
Kg per capita
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1990 1993 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Garden waste from municipalities
Biowaste from households
Paper waste
Source: ETC/RWM (2008d), Biowaste: DESTATIS. Paper: Gallenkemper (1994) for 1990, Bilitewski (2003) for 1997, Destatis
1996–2005 for 1999–2005, all other years are interpolated).

Hungary
8 Hungary
Box 8.1 Main elements and effectiveness of the Hungarian strategy
• The National Waste Management Plan 2003–2008 sets targets on reducing BMW going to landfill in line
with the Landfill Directive, as well as recovery targets for municipal waste. It sets the goal of stabilising
municipal waste generated in 2008 at the level in 2000 and provides that municipal waste should not
increase by more than half the rate of real GDP growth.
• The Hungarian waste strategy has focused on building capacity and setting up schemes for separate
collection, mainly for packaging waste. Recycling is incentivised using charges on products including
packaging and advertising material. The product charge system primarily aims to meet recycling
targets: the charge is returned to the producer or importer if targets are met. Schemes for collecting
biowaste are at an early stage.
• Hungary's landfill rate has remained fairly constant at around 80 % of municipal waste. This is partly
due to the fact that improvements in material recovery and mechanical‑biological treatment capacities
were counterbalanced by temporarily reduced incineration capacity while the single incinerator was
rebuilt over several years.
• In order to meet the targets of the Landfill Directive there is a need for additional waste treatment
capacity. This is complicated by the generally negative public attitude towards new waste incineration
plants and waste‑derived products such as compost. The waste strategy therefore also includes
mechanical‑biological treatment and co‑incineration of RDF in existing power‑plants.
8.1 Waste management situation Waste Management Plan (2003–2008) included

the Landfill Directive's targets for reducing
Before 1989, municipal waste management was not landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste
subject to extensive regulation and focused only but the deadlines were originally set two years
on hazardous wastes and collection of municipal before those in the directive. When the Waste
waste from households. All municipalities operated Management Act was revised in 2007, the targets
one or more landfill sites that were basically waste were transferred to the Act. It was decided,
dumps. however, to postpone the last two targets to 2009
and 2016 as in the directive. The Act provides
The dominant form of waste management was, that the targets should be met both at local and
and still is, landfilling. According to data from regional levels.
the Ministry of Environment and Water, Hungary
landfilled 85 % of its municipal waste in 2004 The National Waste Management Plan also aims
(Figure 8.1). Recent data published by Eurostat to achieve 40 % material or energy recovery of
shows that landfilling of municipal waste has municipal waste by the end of 2008. By 2012, the
decreased to 77 % in 2007 (Eurostat, 2009). target is raised to 50 %. As for waste prevention,
by the end of 2008 the total amount of waste
generated should not exceed the level in 2000. In
8.2 Waste policy objectives addition, growth in municipal waste should not
exceed 50 % of the growth rate of real GDP.
The Waste Management Act (2000) defines
the principles and aims of Hungarian waste A government ordinance from 2002 implements
policy and prescribes that a national waste the Packaging Directive's targets. Hungary will
management plan be developed. The first National have to recycle 50 % of packaging waste by 2005

Hungary
Figure 8.1 Management of municipal waste

Plan. The plan is defined in line with the
in Hungary planning periods of the National Environmental
Programmes which describe the measures and
monitoring necessary to achieve the Hungarian
1 000 tonnes
environmental targets. The Ministry issues permits
5 000 for waste management activities affecting the
4 500 whole territory of the country.
4 000
The regional Inspectorates for Environmental
3 500 Protection, Nature Conservation and Water
3 000 Management are responsible for developing
regional plans. Inspectorates also review the
2 500
harmonisation of waste management plans of
2 000 counties, local authorities and enterprises.
1 500
Local authorities are responsible for organising
1 000
waste management and for drawing up local waste
500 management plans in accordance with the national
0
and regional plans, and spatial planning plans. The
regional Inspectorates issue permits with respect
0
01
02
03
to all waste management issues; they also control

0
0
20
20
20
20
20
the plans of local municipalities and approve

Incineration Recycling Landfilling individual waste management plans. Waste
management companies have been established
Note: The only Hungarian municipal waste incinerator was to carry out the collection and treatment of waste
being rebuilt between December 2002 and December
2005. Since then its capacity has been increased to
and they are usually co‑owned by municipalities
420 000 tonnes per year. (so‑called 'associations of municipalities for
Source: Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water, 2004. common waste treatment facilities') and private
companies.
and 55 % by 2012. The ordinance is supported by

product charges levied on packaging (Section 8.4). 8.4 Policy instruments
In order to meet the targets, it will be necessary to A general campaign was launched in 2001 to
establish further treatment capacities, including extend the network of separate waste collection
extending the network of existing composting and systems gradually. The purpose was to increase
MBT plants, waste incinerators and waste sorting the rate of recycling by enhancing access to these
facilities. free of charge facilities. Metal, plastic, paper, glass
waste and (only at waste yards) hazardous waste,
such as batteries, are collected via bring systems
8.3 Institutional context (a system requiring citizens to bring separately
collected waste fractions to public collection
Hungarian environmental policy, including waste points) and civic recycling centres. BMW, mainly
management policy, has very strong top‑down garden waste, is usually collected by the waste
characteristics. As a result, regulation at regional service provider or via seasonal collections by the
and local levels has to comply with the national municipality (usually in the autumn and spring).
policy. The Waste Management Act also requires that
by 2005 at least 40 % of the population should
Hungary set up its Ministry of Environment have access to separate collection of packaging
and Water in 1989 and then started gradually materials, rising to 60 % by 2009 and 80 % by the
to implement waste management policies, end of 2013.
primarily in order to approximate its practice to
EU standards and the acquis communautaire. An eco‑taxation system of product charges has
Hungary became an EU Member State in 2004. been in operation since 1995. A product charge
The Ministry of Environment and Water prepares is levied on certain products that have an impact
the legislative framework for waste management on the environment, such as packaging materials
and draws up the National Waste Management including beverage packaging for commercial use,

Hungary
advertisement brochures and tyres. If a producer dependent on EU structural funds, however,

or importer meets the recycling or recovery which cover a significant share of project costs
targets, charges are returned. In practice, therefore, — generally 50 % but up to 85 %. The current
the product charge aims to ensure that recycling 17 regional waste management system projects
targets are met. The charge must be paid by the being planned or installed are estimated to cost
producer (or importer), and can be passed on to EUR 680 million.
the consumers. Exemptions or discounts apply
in the case of eco‑labelled products. The Ministry Hungary is close to meeting the 15 % material
of Environment and Water collects a share of the recycling targets of the Packaging Directive. The
revenue from the charge and earmarks it for waste 50 % recovery rate target was met for packaging
recovery and other environmental projects. waste in 2005. Of the total amount of packaging
placed on the market, 47 % was recycled and
Since 2003, landfilling of organic wastes has 3.4 % incinerated with energy recovery. Access to
been partially banned. The amount permitted is separate collection facilities was ensured for 50 %
gradually reducing in line with the interim targets of the population in 2006 and further extension of
for BMW. the system is expected until 2012. Hungarians have
warmly welcomed the separate collection systems
The National Biowaste Programme 2005 includes which are often free of charge. Frequently, residents
initiatives for extending separate collection to demand that municipalities extend the separate
include garden waste, green waste from public collection service area or increase the capacity of
parks, organic kitchen waste and paper by 2008. separate waste collection facilities.
Other initiatives in the Programme include
establishing treatment capacity for BMW and Several stakeholders, for example the Ministry of
better communication to facilitate wider uptake of Environment and Water, environmental NGOs and
separate waste collection. municipalities, have conducted awareness raising
campaigns in recent years. These aimed to promote
responsible consumption and home composting
8.5 Observations on effectiveness and may have helped stabilise the amount of waste
generated. The intensity of awareness raising
According to the Waste Management Act, waste campaigns is expected to be enhanced and financed
management costs should be based on the by the Hungarian Environment and Energy
polluter pays principle and thus paid by the waste Operative Programme from 2007–2013.
producer. Despite this, charging users of waste
collection and treatment services is politically Home composting of organic waste is gradually
sensitive. In the past, the service was provided by improving and gets more and more popular due
the state, usually free of charge, making people to official and NGO‑initiated awareness raising
unaware of the actual costs and environmental campaigns. It is estimated that home composting
impacts of their waste production. Many was around 80 000 tonne (or 8 kilograms per
municipalities are not charging residents directly capita) at the end of 2004. The amount of BMW
for waste management costs but cover the costs composted at composting plants (on new landfills)
from local taxes. 'Pay‑as‑you‑throw' schemes are is increasing but no figures are yet available to
only used in a few towns and regions, typically quantify this. The use of compost as fertiliser is
in recreation areas, where the amount of waste challenged by public aversion to waste‑derived
generated is higher at weekends or certain seasons. products.
State officials and non‑governmental organisations Separate collection of BMW fractions increased to
(NGOs) acknowledge that a dramatic increase in 20 kg per capita in 2006 (Figure 8.2). The Ministry
user charges could lead to an increase in illegal for Environment and Water expects that separate
waste dumping, despite growing environmental collection of BMW compounds alone will not
awareness. One option to finance the additional achieve the necessary level of diversion of BMW
costs of separate collection could be to introduce from landfill, although NGOs have disputed this.
a producer responsibility system to cover wastes Presumably, the Ministry will favour extension
other than packaging. of incineration (of residues from MBT) capacities
instead of composting. Consequently, the main
State and local municipalities only partly provide objective is to start co‑incineration of MBT
the financial resources for setting up waste residuals at two or three power plants. According
management facilities. Modernisation is extremely to current plans, these facilities will co‑incinerate

Hungary
Figure 8.2 Separate collection of only fuel derived from MBT and not incinerate
biodegradable waste in Hungary unsorted municipal waste.
Kg per capita Identifying appropriate sites for new landfills or

waste incinerators is often complicated by local
20
opposition. A draft version of the National Waste
Management Plan included a proposal for starting
six regional municipal waste incinerators but this
15
was blocked due to the extreme resistance of the
public during the consultation processes.
10 Associations of municipalities often overlap

territorially with the planning regions of the
National Waste Management Plan. Because
5 the practical implementation of municipal
activities differs from the regional planning, this
sometimes results in a confusion of institutional
responsibilities. Regional Development Councils,
0
which are responsible for regional infrastructural
01
02
03
planning in line with the requirements of

0
0
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
EU funds, lack professionals and are in need

Source: ETC/RWM, 2008e and Hungarian Ministry of
of professional capacity building in order to
Environment and Water, 2005. coordinate the new regional projects better.

Italy
9 Italy
Box 9.1 Main elements and effectiveness of the Italian strategy
• The National Strategy for Biodegradable Waste defines targets for landfilling biodegradable municipal
waste in kilograms per capita as well as targets for collecting municipal waste separately.
• Based on the Strategy, Italy's regions have developed programmes defining the instruments to
use to divert waste from landfills. Separate collection, especially of biodegradable fractions of
municipal waste but also of packaging waste, plays a major role. Whereas the programmes of
the northern regions focus more on composting and incineration, the southern regions use more
mechanical‑biological treatment.
• Every 'optimal management area' (or province) has to meet a set of national targets for landfilling
biodegradable municipal waste. These targets have been defined in kilograms per inhabitant in order
to improve monitoring at the local level.
• Italy has steadily reduced landfilling of municipal waste so that about half was diverted in 2006.
There is, however, a considerable difference between the performance of the northern regions and
the southern and central regions.
9.1 Waste management situation based on the quantity (kilograms) of BMW produced
per capita. That decision was based on two core
Italy has traditionally landfilled most of its waste reasons: the lack of reliable data on the quantity of
and although schemes for recovering materials such biodegradable municipal waste landfilled in 1995 and
as wood and paper have been rooted in society, Italy the need to implement improved monitoring at the
still landfilled 82 % of its BMW in 1995 (Figure 9.1). local level. Moreover, every province is supposed to
Although Italy could have got a derogation period meet these targets and the per capita targets aim to
from the Landfill Directive's targets on landfilling ensure even implementation throughout the country.
BMW it decided not to do so. BMW generation Targets have been defined for 2008, 2011 and 2018.
increased by 20 % in the 10 years until 2005, which Italy transposed the Landfill Directive into national
makes it more difficult to meet the Landfill Directive law in January 2003, i.e. 18 months after the deadline.
targets, as they are based on the reference year 1995. As such the targets follow the intervals of the
The increase may partly result from economic growth directive with a delay of two years.
and improved waste statistics.
Italy also set targets for collecting municipal waste
Italy has steadily increased its separate collection of separately. The first set of targets were agreed in 1997
biodegradable waste fractions. The largest fractions and aimed at 35 % separate collection by 2003. The
collected are paper, and food and garden waste. targets were ambitious in the light of the fact that
There are, however, large differences in the separate separate collection at the time was only 10 %. Even
collection between northern, central and southern though Italy had not yet met the 2003 target, a second
Italy. set of targets was set in 2006, aiming at a progressive
improvement in the separate collection rate, from
40 % in 2007 to 65 % in 2012.
9.2 Waste policy objectives
Targets on recycling packaging waste were first
Instead of transposing the percentage‑based targets introduced in 1997 and then updated in 2006
set out in the Landfill Directive, Italy adopted targets concurrent with the targets on separate collection.

Italy
Figure 9.1 Management of biodegradable economically feasible and generally correspond

municipal waste 1995–2005 to province boundaries. Other countries have a
similar approach of joining forces but there it is
1 000 tonnes usually the municipalities themselves who decide
if and with whom they cooperate. Every region
20 000
must also formulate a plan for reducing landfilling
18 000 of biodegradable waste. The regions define the
16 000 waste streams to be collected separately and issue
permits on constructing new treatment capacity and
14 000
upgrading existing plants.
12 000
10 000 The provinces coordinate the municipalities' waste

management and identify instruments for separate
8 000
collection, enhancing implementation of the regional
6 000 waste management plan. Municipalities are in
4 000
charge of municipal waste collection and disposal
and collect charges for managing waste.
2 000
0
9.4 Policy instruments
6
97
98
95
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
9
20
19
20
19
20
20
19
19
19
20
20
Recycled and incinerated BMW The framework for waste policy instruments is
Landfilled BMW often introduced at national level leaving the actual
implementation of practical measures to the lower
Source: ETC/RWM, 2008f; and APAT, 2007.
levels of administration.
These packaging recycling targets are the same as The charge for waste collection and management
those in the revised Packaging Directive, except for is based on households' floor space per capita in
those relating to plastic and wood, which have higher the vast majority of municipalities. To provide an
values than the ones set in the directive. The Italian incentive to prevent waste and increase recycling,
legislation provides for targets of 26 % for plastic some municipalities are developing a new system
and 35 % for wood, rather than the 22.5 % and 15 % wherein the waste collection charge also depends
respectively stipulated in the directive. on the amount of waste generated per person in the
household. The coverage of costs has improved in
recent years, withthe charge now covering around
9.3 Institutional context 90 % of waste management costs.
Italy has four administrative levels: national, Italy introduced a landfill tax in 1996. The national
regional, provincial and municipal. Each has regulation defines the upper and lower level of
responsibilities for waste management. The the tax but the regions determine the precise level
Ministry of Environment outlines the overall waste within these limits. The regions also decide the
management strategy by establishing the legislative destination of the tax revenues. The tax has an
framework, setting targets at national level and environmental dimension as regions can spend
drawing up the National Waste Management Plan. up to 20 % of the revenue on improving the
The regions prepare regional waste management waste management system, financing regional
plans based on criteria defined in the national environmental protection agencies or protecting
legislation and the provinces develop waste natural areas.
management plans in conformity with the regional
plans. In 2003, the national Parliament announced that
it would introduce a landfill ban for waste with a
The regions issue regulations in compliance with calorific value exceeding 13 megajoules per tonne
the national legislation and define the 'optimal but the ban was not enacted until 2006 and took
areas for the management of waste' (ATOs) that are effect in December 2008.
responsible for meeting the targets on landfilling
BMW and separate collection of municipal Some Mediterranean soils are undersupplied
waste. The ATOs are supposed to represent a with organic matter and others are at risk of
geographical entity where waste management is desertification. Compost can help restore the

Italy
organic content and for this reason many regions biodegradable fractions of municipal waste since
have introduced individual measures to promote 2000. In the first six years of the decade separate
soil restoration of farming areas using organic soil collection doubled to 100 kilograms per capita. The
improvers. For instance, the Emilia‑Romagna region largest fractions collected are paper, and food and
provides farmers with subsidies of EUR 150–180 per garden waste. Still, Figure 9.3 shows that although
hectare to promote the use of compost. The Italian all three parts of Italy have increased their separate
Composting Association has developed a quality collection, the difference between the north and the
assurance system and label to guarantee good two other areas is remarkable. Separate collection
compost quality and some regions have introduced was 40 % in the north in 2006, against 10 % in the
a regional quality label for compost. south and 20 % in central Italy. Moreover, it seems
that growth in separate collection has levelled off in
The main composted waste fractions originate from the south and centre since 2003.
domestic food wastes, green wastes from gardens
and parks, agro‑industry wastes and sewage sludge. When comparing the actual development in
The quality of compost that can be sold as a product separate collection with the targets, it appears that
is prescribed by legislation (legislative decree 217 the targets were set according to the capacities
of 2006), which defines the different typologies of of the northern regions rather than for the whole
compost, setting precise agronomical parameters, country. This is particularly the case for the second
microbiological standards and pollutants limit set of targets from 2006. Even though Italy had not
values. Compost can also be used for organic yet met its 2003 target of 35 % separate collection,
agriculture if it meets specific standards. policy‑makers decided to set more ambitious
targets for 2007 that only the northern regions
The output of composting plants is primarily could realistically achieve. In general, kerbside or
marketed: door‑to‑door separate collection provided the best
results both in terms of amounts collected and the
• by sale via the floriculture sector (mainly quality of the collected streams.
mixed with peat and then sold to the public in
supermarkets;
Figure 9.2 Separate collection of
• by direct sale to the public (currently only in biodegradable waste in Italy
small quantities);
Kg per capita
• by sale to agricultural businesses to cultivate
110
open‑field crops.
100
In order to help develop a market for recycled 90

products, green public procurement regulation 80
requires public bodies and companies to buy goods
70
made of recycled materials to meet at least 30 % of
their annual demand. 60
50
40
30
Most of Italy's regions are still far from achieving the 20
2008 target on diverting biodegradable waste from 10

landfill, particularly in southern and central Italy. Six 0
of the twenty regions have met the 2008 target, and
0
01
02
03
the Lombardy region has already reached the 2018

0
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
target and landfills less than 81 kilograms per capita.

Textiles Food and garden waste
As about half of the population lives in northern
Italy (producing half of the waste generated), the Wooden bulky waste Paper
2008 target has almost been achieved at national Wood packaging
level.
Note: Figures for the collection of textiles, wooden bulky
waste and wood packaging are not available for 2000
Figure 9.2 illustrates that there has been a slow and 2001.
but steady increase in separate collection of Source: APAT, 2007; and ISTAT, 2007.

Italy
The regions have chosen different strategies to have been less than hoped because the tax is quite
divert municipal waste from landfills. Composting low and may not provide sufficient incentive to
and incineration are more common in the northern choose an alternative to landfilling. Decree 152/2006
regions due to the development and the adoption foresees an increase of the tax in cases where
of integrated waste management strategies. In provinces do not meet the targets on separate
southern regions efforts have been channelled collection. There may also be a need to monitor how
into building MBT plants and producing the revenue from the tax is used to ensure that it
Refuse‑Derived Fuel in order to overcome realises improvements in the waste management
dependency on landfill. system.
The public has been very critical of the waste

management sector, partly because of negative Figure 9.3 Separate collection of municipal
experiences with some old technologies used at waste in northern, central and
certain waste management plants. In some regions southern Italy
investments in new incineration capacity are being
planned with little opposition from local people % of municipal waste
whereas there is strong public opposition to new 45
plants in other regions as illustrated by the case
40
of Naples, where municipal waste mounted up in
the streets in 2008. It is therefore very important to 35
adopt strategies (particularly public information 30
campaigns) to create constructive relationships with
the public. Public acceptance may also increase 25
following the adoption of national guidelines on 20

best available techniques for waste incineration in
15
2007.
10
Implementation of the Packaging Directive has 5
played an important role because it was among the
first regulations to introduce separate collection 0
schemes. Italy is close to meeting the Packaging

9
01
02
03
07
0
9
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
20
19
20
20
20
Directive's target of recycling 55 % of packaging

in 2008. To manage packaging waste a producer
North National targets
responsibility system for packaging, CONAI, was
established in 1997. Centre Italy
South
The landfill tax has contributed to the diversion
of waste from landfill, although the effect may Source: APAT, 2007.

Comparative assessment and conclusions
10 Comparative assessment and

conclusions
This chapter compares the effectiveness of the The Landfill Directive's targets seem to provide
five countries and one sub‑national region in a good framework, allowing countries time to
diverting municipal solid waste, particularly define a strategy and the option to make the most
BMW, from landfill. The assessment is based on cost‑effective investments. It also allows the national
the individual studies outlined in the preceding governments — and the European Commission — to
chapters, combining the indicator‑based analysis measure progress and adjust policies if necessary.
and interviews with stakeholders described
in Chapter 3, and the econometric analysis of The success of the EU measures in guiding
EU‑25 Member States (ETC/RWM, 2008h). policy appears to stem partly from its use of
short‑ and medium‑term targets on the way to
As outlined below, the analysis reveals that the achieving long‑term goals. By contrast, Germany
different circumstances of the five Member States agreed a long‑term target in 1993, which banned
and one region have led to different waste the landfilling of organic waste 12 years later.
management solutions. In part, this is a result of Unfortunately, this target seems to have been too
the flexibility inherent in the Landfill Directive's distant and as a result some federal states did not
long‑term target (combined with intermediate maintain it as part of their agenda. More short‑term
targets) for reducing the landfill of BMW, targets might have better retained the attention of
which has allowed Member States to try out both the federal states and the national government.
different options that respond to their particular
requirements. Equally, it reflects Member States' In the six geographical areas studied, a mixture of
need to design waste management systems that regulatory, economic and voluntary instruments
build on existing institutional structures and was implemented to help fulfil the targets of the
tradition. Viewed together, this suggests that Landfill Directive, and in general it appears that a
totally harmonising waste management systems good combination of policy instruments is required
across Europe would not be the most appropriate to divert waste from landfills effectively. In Finland
solution. the measures were initiated a few years before the
directive was passed in 1999. In Estonia, Hungary
and Italy the majority of the measures were linked
10.1 Impact of EU policy to the directive's targets and provisions. Table 10.1
provides an overview of the policy measures
The Landfill Directive has clearly been a driver for implemented.
closing landfills and increasing alternative waste
management routes such as recycling, composting, There is no evidence of the Landfill Directive having
mechanical‑biological treatment and incineration. prevented waste generation. A previous EEA policy
But there are clear differences between countries. In effectiveness study came to a similar conclusion
Germany and the Flemish Region the diversion of regarding the Packaging Directive's lack of impact
(biodegradable) municipal waste had begun years on waste production (EEA, 2005a). The conclusion
before the Commission's proposal for a directive in is also supported by the econometric analysis of
1997, so the Landfill Directive had less impact here. EU‑25 Member States (ETC/RWM, 2008h). That
The directive's impact was greatest in the countries study did reveal a relative decoupling of waste
where the process of shifting away from landfilling generation from income, however, and confirmed
BMW was not already under way, especially in that the Landfill Directive had brought about some
Estonia, Hungary and Italy where landfilling rates of diversion of municipal waste from landfill in the
BMW were at or above 75 % in 1995. For Estonia and European Union.
Hungary, EU accession in 2004 was the main driver
for changing landfill policies and it had a similar The Packaging Directive played an important role in
effect in Finland in 1995. raising environmental awareness and introducing

Table 10.1 Policy measures for managing municipal waste
Flemish
Estonia Finland Region Germany Hungary Italy
User charge for
waste collection and √ √ √ √ √ √
management
Environmental product
√
charges
Landfill tax √ √ √ √ (regional)
Incineration tax √
Landfill ban √ √ √ √ √ √
Separate collection of
√ √ √ √ √ √ (regional)
biowaste
Producer responsibility/
voluntary agreement for √ √ √
waste paper
Producer responsibility for
√ √ √ √ √ √
packaging waste
separate collection schemes for paper and Unfortunately, the lack of a harmonised method to
cardboard, glass, metals, plastics. In some countries, measure or estimate the amount of biodegradable
especially Estonia, Hungary and parts of Italy, the municipal waste makes it difficult to analyse
introduction of separate collection schemes for the effectiveness of EU policy measures. Lack of
biodegradable packaging waste (paper, cardboard reliable data also hindered the earlier EEA study on
and wood packaging) in order to fulfil the Packaging packaging waste policies (EEA, 2005a).
Directive's targets has helped start diverting
biodegradable waste away from landfills. This may
be because the Packaging Directive was the first 10.2 Influence of renewable energy
directive to introduce obligatory separate collection policies
of selected materials and packaging is a very visible
waste stream for citizens. The Directive on the promotion of electricity
produced from renewable energy sources
Several of the countries in this study have met the (2001/77/EC) sets national indicative targets for
Landfill Directive's targets on landfilling BMW. the amount of gross electricity consumption to
The Flemish Region and Germany have already be supplied from renewable sources by 2010.
met the 2016 target of landfilling less than 35 % of Incineration of biodegradable municipal waste with
the amount of BMW generated in 1995. Finland, energy recovery is considered a renewable energy
Hungary and Italy have met the 2006 target of source and the directive may therefore provide an
reducing the landfilling of BMW to 75 % of the additional incentive to divert biodegradable waste
amount generated in 1995, while Estonia was close from landfill.
to meeting this target in 2005. Bearing in mind that
Estonia landfilled more than 80 % of its waste in Table 10.2 details renewable energy produced at
1995, it has already made substantial progress. municipal waste incineration plants.
Table 10.2 Gross electricity generation from municipal waste in 2004 and 2005, GWh
2004 2005 Change 2004–2005 (%)

Finland 304 347 14.1
Belgium 789 850 7.7
Germany 4 232 6 076 43.6
Hungary 52 118 126.9
Italy 2 276 2 619 15.1
Source: International Energy Agency, Statistics, Renewables, 2005.

It shows that in Germany electricity production to the absolute amount of BMW generated in 1995.
from municipal waste increased by 44 % from 2004 The highest generation was in the Flemish Region
to 2005. In the same period, waste incineration with 579 kilograms per capita in 1995 but this
increased by just 11 %. The reason for the substantial figure includes biodegradable waste from the food
gap between the two figures could be that some industry and commercial activities corresponding
incinerators are capable of producing electricity on to 375 kilograms per capita. BMW generation in
top of heat if market conditions make it profitable Estonia, Finland, Germany and Italy lies between
to do so. Hungary's 127 % increase in electricity 320 and 380 kilograms per capita, whereas it is
generation was due to the reopening of the considerably lower in Hungary.
incineration plant in 2005.
The lack of a harmonised method to measure or
estimate the amount of biodegradable municipal
10.3 Generation of biodegradable waste makes it difficult to compare the data on
municipal waste BMW between different countries. Whereas the
amount of separately collected biodegradable waste
Biodegradable substances (biowaste, paper and fractions (mainly biowaste and paper and cardboard
cardboard, and biodegradable textiles) make up a waste) can be measured directly, the share of BMW
considerable share of municipal waste in mixed municipal waste has to be estimated.
— approximately 60–70 % in most countries.
The methodology for estimating the generation of
The generation of BMW has been relatively stable BMW, which is derived from the share of BMW in
over the period 1995–2006 although its production municipal waste, differs across countries. Estonia
varies between countries and regions (Figure 10.1). uses a share of 65 %, Germany 57 %, Italy 62 % and
Italy experienced an increase in BMW generation Hungary 52 %. Finland assumes that BMW is 83 %
of 20 % while Finland saw a decrease of 9 %. An of the total residual, mixed waste. This proportion
increase in generation of BMW makes it more is much higher than in other Member States. In
difficult to reach the diversion targets of the Finland's case, however, a study by the Helsinki
Landfill Directive because the targets are related metropolitan area waste company determined that
Figure 10.1 Generation of biodegradable municipal waste per capita
Kg per capita
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Estonia Hungary Germany

Flemish Region Finland Italy
Source: ETC/RWM, 2008a–f.

BMW accounts for only 69 % of mixed municipal evolving in a similar direction; the Estonian
waste in the Helsinki area. A European guideline government expects that the Landfill Directive
harmonising the estimation of biodegradable targets will not be met without introducing
municipal waste amounts would thus facilitate incineration. However, this has not been reflected
more effective and comparable monitoring of in policy documents yet.
progress towards the Landfill Directive's diversion
targets. Table 10.3 shows the development of the diversion
indicator (BMW landfilled as percentage of the
BMW generated in 1995) for the five countries and
10.4 Landfilling of biodegradable one region of this study.
municipal waste (Landfill Directive
target)
10.5 Treatment capacity
The Flemish Region and Germany have already met
the Landfill Directive's 2016 target to landfill not 10.5.1 Landfill
more than 35 % of the amount of BMW generated
in 1995. The German landfill ban has clearly proven Closing outdated landfills is an important driver
effective. After the implementation deadline in 2005, for adopting new waste treatment options. Over the
BMW landfilled is equivalent to less than 7 % of that last 10–15 years the number of landfills in the five
generated in 1993 (the reference year for Germany). countries and one region has decreased markedly.
The Flemish Region's strategy was also very effective: Most of the closures have been dumpsites or other
in 2003, BMW equivalent to just 17 % of that low standard sites. Information on the actual landfill
generated in 1995 was landfilled. Finland, Hungary capacity is not available but it seems fair to conclude
and Italy have met the 2006 target of 75 % of 1995 that capacity has decreased. Despite this, data on
levels but still have some way to go to meet the 2009 current waste generation and landfill rates for
target of 50 % (Finland stood at 59 % in 2006; Italy at municipal waste indicate that the remaining capacity
67 % in 2005 and Hungary at 75 % in 2006). at landfills is sufficient for many years to come.
Estonia landfilled 60 % of its MSW in 2006. Under the Diverting waste from landfill depends on the cost
assumption that BMW follows the same management and feasibility of alternatives. The appropriate role of
route as municipal waste and that the share of dedicated incineration is a matter of public debate in
BMW in MSW does not change, Estonia was close to some countries, notably Germany, Hungary and Italy.
meeting its 2010 Landfill Directive target of reducing Federal states and regions that objected to dedicated
landfill of BMW to 75 % of 1995 levels (with the 4‑year incineration have, however, accepted the use of MBT
derogation) in 2005. It was, however, still far from the with residues co‑incinerated in cement kilns and
national target of 45 % also due in 2010. Moreover, the power stations. Composting capacity seems to play an
fact that the roughly 20 % of households that lacked important role in diverting BMW from landfill both in
access to regular waste collection are rapidly gaining countries where incineration is widely welcomed and
such services may make it more difficult to meet the those where it is not.
targets.
After 16 July 2009, all existing landfills must comply
Finland has changed its strategy for managing with the provisions of the Landfill Directive.
BMW from composting and anaerobic digestion Member States are obliged to close down all landfill
toward a strategy focused on incineration with sites that do not obtain a permit to operate after
energy recovery. The situation in Estonia is that date. As a result, many existing landfills have
Table 10.3 Biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) landfilled as a percentage of BMW

generated in 1995
Flemish
Estonia Finland Region Germany Hungary Italy
1995 100 % 65 % 29 % 27 % (1999) 75 % 82 %
2005/2006 77 % 59 % 17 % (2003) 7% 75 % 67 %
(latest available data)
Note: In some countries BMW is estimated as a constant share of municipal waste: Estonia 65 %; Hungary 52 %; Italy 62 %.

Figure 10.2 Development in the number of landfills for non‑hazardous municipal waste in four
EU Member States
Number of landfills
1 000 8 273
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1990 1993 1995 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Estonia Finland Germany Italy
Source: ETC/RWM, 2008a, b, d, f.
already been closed and more sites will follow. Many Figure 10.3 Landfill capacity for municipal
of these sites were of poor standard and some were waste: remaining years at
even illegal dumpsites. In several countries, however, current landfill rate
this trend had already started before the adoption
of the Landfill Directive. It is likely that the Landfill
Remaining years
Directive will lead to fewer but larger landfills in the
future. 35
The development in the number of landfills in 30
Estonia, Finland, Germany and Italy is shown

25
in Figure 10.2. Germany started closing landfills
in western Germany in the 1970s and, after the 20
reunification, in eastern Germany in the early 1990s.
In Finland it seems that the EU accession in 1995 and 15
the enactment of the Landfill Directive accelerated
the process. The same is true for Estonia where the 10
process started slightly later. In both Italy and Estonia
the closure of landfills has been relatively swift. 5
0
If we compare countries according to the number of
3) d
4) r y
n
0) ny
landfills per inhabitant, Estonia and to a lesser degree

00 n
io
0 0 ga
00 a
(2 inla
eg
(2 erm
(2 un
R
Finland have many more landfills than Germany

F
H
0) h
G
0 0 is
(2 lem
and Italy. However, the total area of Germany and

F
Finland is almost the same, so the convenience of

having a landfill nearby has played a role in Finland.
Note: The graph shows how many years the country/region
Where population density is very low, particularly in can continue to landfill municipal waste if the share of
the northern part of Finland, closure of local landfills waste landfilled remains the same as in the year shown
would result in higher transport costs and higher
in brackets.
associated emissions. Italy has mainly closed landfills Source: ETC/RWM, 2008b, c, d, e.

in the southern regions where there are still a large paper mills with stable energy demand throughout
number. the year. In comparison, the energy production
aspect of waste incineration has so far been less
The number of landfills is not an adequate measure important in Hungary and Italy.
of residual landfill capacity as this depends on a
series of factors including the size of the landfills, Finland's waste policy in 1991 focused on recycling
the height to which waste is disposed of and the and prevention, despite advice from the Finnish
density of collected waste. Unfortunately, information environmental administration in favour of a
about residual capacity is scarce because the waste combination of incineration and biological treatment.
sector is undergoing major changes, with landfill At the end of the 1990s, however, Finland decided
sites being closed or upgraded to comply with the to implement co‑incineration. Late in the process it
Landfill Directive. was realised that co‑incineration plants incinerating
waste had to comply with the Waste Incineration
Based on the available data on residual capacity, Directive and its strict emission standards. The
Figure 10.3 shows the number of years that a country extra cost of meeting these requirements made
or region can continue to landfill municipal waste the use of Refuse‑Derived Fuel (RDF) unattractive
at its current rate in accordance with the Landfill for co‑incineration plants. Energy prices will be
Directive's technical requirements. By these terms, the important in determining whether the 10 planned
remaining capacity in Finland is 32 years. In Germany co‑incineration plants will use waste (predominantly
it is 22 years while it is around 15 years in Hungary from commerce, industry and construction) as a fuel
and the Flemish Region. in the coming five to seven years.
10.5.2 Incineration Finland has launched a new planning round

regarding dedicated waste incinerators. One new
Incineration capacity has increased in Germany and plant has been built next to a hazardous waste
the Flemish Region to around 35 % of municipal incinerator and started operation in late 2007. It
waste generated. This is significantly more than is hoped that the hazardous waste plant's good
in Finland (less than 3 %), Hungary (9 %) and reputation will 'rub off' on the new plant. The new
Italy (16 %). It implies that a considerable part of plant is jointly owned by the state, municipalities
waste diversion from landfills in Germany and
the Flemish Region is due to waste incineration
(Figure 10.4). Figure 10.4 Capacities for dedicated
incineration, composting and
In order to reduce the environmental impacts of MBT of municipal waste in five
waste incineration and improve the image of waste countries and one region
incinerators, Germany adopted an ordinance in
1991 that set high technical standards for waste Kg per capita
incineration facilities. In parallel, rules on organic
250
content in waste going to landfills were introduced
in 1993 and formulated in such a way that the limits
200
could only be achieved using waste incineration.
This led to a 70 % increase in the incineration
150
capacity from 1990 to 2005.
100
Waste incineration in the Flemish Region had a
similar image problem in the 1970s and 1980s
50
when emission levels were much higher. A public
campaign was launched to promote incineration in
0
parallel with modernizing incinerators and putting
a
on
ry
stricter emission limits in place.

d
an
al
ni
an
ga
gi
It
to
m
Re
nl
un
Es
er
Fi
H
h
G
is
Estonia and Finland are now planning to make

em
Fl
greater use of incineration with energy recovery.

Incineration Composting MBT
Both countries are situated in colder parts of Europe
but whereas Estonia is seeking to reduce the use Note: Treatment capacities data derive from the years 2005,
of oil shale for energy generation, Finland sees an 2006 or 2007 depending on availability. Composting
capacity data for Germany is from 2003.
opportunity to connect new waste incinerators to
Source: ETC/RWM, 2008b–f.

and private investors. Another new dedicated waste digestion, which produces compost that can be
incinerator has been launched recently. used as a soil improver or fertiliser, often subject to
quality requirements. In addition, anaerobic digestion
One reason that dedicated waste incineration is not produces energy.
preferred in Finland is that almost every city and
town already has district heating based on combined Germany has the largest composting capacity,
heat and power systems provided by coal or natural followed by Italy, Finland and the Flemish Region.
gas fired plants. Dedicated incineration capacity is The capacity in Hungary and Estonia is considerably
therefore hard to fit into existing heating systems lower (Figure 10.4). Since 1999, capacity at
where demand is low in summer and heat coming composting plants has increased manifold in
from waste incinerators would have to compete with Finland, Hungary, Italy and Germany. Capacity
the coal‑ or gas‑fuelled combined heat and power increased by five times in Finland from 20 kilograms
plants. Connecting waste incinerators to paper mills to 100 kilograms and in Hungary from 5 kilograms
with their stable energy demand is considered to be to 25 kilograms per capita. In Italy it tripled from
an opportunity in Finland. 40 kilograms to 120 kilograms per capita while in
Germany it rose by 50 % in four years from around
Waste management strategies in Italy differ between 130 kilograms to nearly 200 kilograms per capita.
regions. Thirty of the country's 50 incineration plants
are located in the north while only eight are in the Both Hungary and Italy report existing composting
south. In 2005 incineration plants operated at 85 % sites running at less than half capacity due to a
of their capacity treating municipal waste, RDF and lack of separately collected organic waste. In 2003
other waste fractions. Landfilling is an accepted form Germany also had 50 % free capacity at biological
of waste treatment in the southern regions, where treatment plants; separate collection was 7.3 million
incinerators are strongly resisted. The public is tonnes while treatment capacity was around
becoming increasingly vocal in its opposition to many 14 million tonnes. In Estonia the plant at the Tallinn
waste management facilities. In response, campaigns landfill was operating at around 15 % of capacity in
are used to raise acceptance of both incineration and 2006 (approximately 4 000 tonnes of 29 000 tonnes).
MBT plants by providing more detailed information However, Tallinn city only started separate
on them. collection of biodegradable kitchen waste in April
2007, so it is hoped that within a few years the plant
Hungary has one municipal waste incineration plant will be operating at around 50 % of capacity.
in Budapest. It was reopened in 2005 with increased
capacity after modernisation to comply with Waste 10.5.4 Mechanical‑biological treatment
Incineration Directive requirements. At present, there
are no municipal waste incineration plants in Estonia Mechanical‑biological treatment (MBT) is usually
but there are plans to build two plants with combined used to treat mixed municipal waste. Materials
heat and electricity production. In both Hungary and suited for incineration or recycling are separated
Estonia, energy produced from waste is supposed to and biological treatment is then used to reduce
partially replace gas imports from Russia. In addition, the volume and organic content of the remaining
energy prices have been rising over recent years fraction. The quality of the biologically treated waste
but future developments are uncertain due to the fraction is usually poor and therefore it is landfilled
economic downturn in 2008 and 2009. High energy or used as low‑quality compost, e.g. as landfill cover.
prices and the chance of greater independence from
gas imports from Russia might improve the currently Italy has by far the largest MBT capacity with
low public acceptance of waste incineration in 230 kilograms per capita in 2005, which was almost
Hungary. In Estonia energy from waste incineration three times higher than in 2000. This meant that
could partially replace heat produced from oil shale, 23 % of municipal waste was treated by means of
delivering improved environmental performance. MBT in 2005. Still, only half of the operating capacity
was used.
10.5.3 Composting
Germany accepted MBT as a pre‑treatment
Composting or anaerobic digestion is used to recover method before landfilling in 2001 and capacity
collected biowaste separately from households correspondingly doubled in the period 2000–2005.
(kitchen and garden waste) and businesses, often The Flemish Region opened its first MBT plant in
together with comparable waste from the food 2007 with a capacity of 30 kilograms per capita. The
industry. Separately collected biodegradable waste is capacity in Estonia is similar but is much lower in
typically treated by either composting or anaerobic Hungary and Finland (Figure 10.4).

10.6 Separate collection of In the Flemish Region, a combination of diversion

biodegradable municipal waste policies (including a waste disposal levy, targets for
fractions separate collection binding on all public authorities,
'pay‑as‑you‑throw' schemes and subsidies to
Separate collection of biodegradable municipal stimulate separate collection) produced the highest
waste fractions (mainly paper and cardboard, rate of separate BMW collection in this study at
packaging waste, and food and garden waste) has more than 200 kilograms per capita.
been increasingly used to divert biodegradable
waste from landfill (Figure 10.5). In order Over the last decade, separate collection has
to arrive at high rates of separate collection, developed at varying speeds in different parts of
regular communication activities are particularly Italy, achieving a high performance in the northern
important to keep households (and others) aware regions, while facing difficulties in the centre and
and active in separating waste and participating in particularly in the south. As the collection of 'dry'
home composting schemes. recyclables is not sufficient to meet the national
targets on separate collection, most regional waste
In Germany the province of Hesse initiated management plans promote separate collection
separate collection of biowaste to divert waste systems for food waste and home composting.
from landfill as early as 1983. It was successful Between 2002 and 2005 separate collection
and spread to the rest of the country over the next increased by 33 % to 91 kilograms per capita.
ten years. In 2005, the BMW collected separately
was 189 kilograms per capita, around half of it In Finland separate collection figures for BMW
biowaste. fractions are available from 2002. The collection
Figure 10.5 Separate collection of biodegradable municipal waste fractions
Kg per capita
250
200
150
100
50
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Estonia Germany
Finland Hungary
Flemish Region Italy
Note: Figures for Italy 2002–2006 include food and garden waste, paper, textiles, wood packaging and bulky wooden waste.

rate has remained stable at around 25 % of low levels of heavy metals and other unwanted
municipal waste generation, corresponding to substances) and this quality is recognized by
121 kilograms per capita in 2005. potential users. Good quality compost requires
separate collection of biowaste combined with
In the new Member States separate collection plenty of information and guidance to households
systems are still being established. As a result, and potential users of the compost. It also requires
approximately 50 % of the population in Hungary the setting up of monitoring systems and possibly
has yet to receive access to separate collection quality standards or labels.
systems (of packaging waste), while 60–80 % of the
rural population in Estonia do not have access to a In some cases biological treatment capacity is
waste collection system at all. Separate collection in available but the quality or the 'purity' of the
Hungary was about 20 kilograms per capita in 2005 collected biodegradable waste is inadequate to
and around 40 kilograms in Estonia. An important produce good quality compost. National quality
objective has been to improve the coverage of the standards set in the Flemish Region, Germany and
collection systems in these countries. Italy seem to have been effective in ensuring that
compost quality is sufficient for agricultural use,
The Packaging Directive plays an important role wholesale and private gardening.
in establishing separate collection systems. The
directive was one of the first to set recycling and In Germany the quality of compost is defined in
recovery targets for a specific, and very visible, an ordinance and the Bundesgütegemeinschaft
waste stream and has clearly been a driver for Kompost association awards certificates for
starting separate collection. This seems to be products complying with the ordinance. Around
particularly true in Estonia, Finland, Hungary and 3 million tonnes of compost products were
Italy. produced by members of the association in 2006
(36 kilograms per capita).
The figures do not include amounts of
biodegradable wastes composted privately In the Flemish Region the compost organisation,
by citizens. It is difficult to estimate the exact VLACO, is responsible for coordinating the
quantities of municipal waste prevented through implementation of systems to collect and
home composting. About 40 % of households home manage kitchen and garden waste, including
compost in the Flemish Region which is estimated home composting. More than 300 000 tonnes of
to reduce annual MSW generation by compost were produced in 2006 (92 kilograms
25–80 kilograms per capita. In Germany an per capita). Good quality compost is sold at
estimated 3–7 million tonnes of biowaste is home EUR 6–7 per tonne.
composted each year, which equals 40–85 kilograms
per capita. In Estonia home composting has Italy has generated compost of an acceptable
been introduced in the capital and in some rural quality but has found it difficult to establish a
areas. In Hungary home composting is also being well functioning market. High quality compost is
implemented; the 3 200 households currently defined in the Italian regulation and can be used in
registered produce around 80 000 tonnes of organic agriculture. In 2002, the annual production
compost annually or 8 kilograms per capita. of compost was estimated to be between
800 000 and 900 000 tonnes (CIC, 2009), or about
15 kilograms per capita.
10.7 Importance of markets for
compost and other recycled In Finland the quality of products from
materials composting BMW and sludge has not been
sufficient to be used as fertiliser or soil improver.
The need for compost to improve soil varies across A market could therefore not be established for
Europe. The soils of southern EU Member States these types of use. Instead, they have been used for
are facing a particularly destructive decline in landscaping and for top covering at landfills.
organic matter, however, and compost can play an
important role in restoring the organic content. To counter poor compost quality, in 2006 Finland
introduced a regulation for biowaste and
Many studies have stressed the need for a sludge‑based fertilisers and soil improvers, defining
well‑functioning market for the products of criteria for the use of compost. If the compost fulfils
biological treatment. Demand can only be created the criteria given in the legislation, it can be used
if products are of good quality (i.e. containing e.g. on farmland. If the municipalities use their

own compost, they have also to fulfil the legislative are wholesale markets, private gardening and
requirements for fertilisers. The regulation has led to landscaping.
improved compost quality but it is too early to assess
whether it has led to compost being used for other Compared to markets for compost, the situation with
purposes than the existing routes of landscaping and respect to marketing recycled paper and cardboard
landfill cover. In the absence of policies which aim at collected separately from households is much more
increasing the quality of the compost and creating a favourable. The countries included in this study
market, the compost is probable to be used as landfill did not cite it as a major obstacle to paper recycling.
cover or in landscaping. However, one may expect The revised Waste Framework Directive's new 50 %
that this option will become less relevant after 2009 recycling target for paper, metal, glass, and plastic
when many existing landfills that do not comply with from households might nonetheless create the
the provisions of the directive are closed. need for policies to improve the markets for these
secondary raw materials.
The Hungarian market for compost does not
work very well as there is little interest in compost There are also indications that the market for recycled
derived products. The closing of old landfills will waste materials is negatively affected by the current
absorb unsold compost materials in the short term. economic downturn. Decreased global demand
Nonetheless, due to strict technical standards on soil for materials, including waste‑derived materials,
fertilizers and the general public aversion to waste means lower prices for them (ENDS Europe, 2008).
derived products, the market for recycled products Additional measures might be necessary in the future
including composts is still limited. to maintain current recycling levels and further
increase recycling.
Figure 10.6 shows compost usage in the
Flemish Region, Germany and Italy. In Germany and
Italy the majority of compost is used in agriculture, 10.8 Landfill taxes and gate fees
whereas the Flemish Region only uses 9 % for this
purpose. Other major destinations of compost In general it appears that a combination of policy
instruments is required to divert waste from
landfills effectively. Economic instruments such
Figure 10.6 Use of compost in Germany, the as user charges for the management of municipal
Flemish Region and Italy waste (e.g. 'pay‑as‑you‑throw' schemes), landfill tax
and product charges can have a significant role if
% designed to regulate the behaviour of households,
60 waste companies and producers.
50 For a landfill tax to be effective, the tax level should

be relatively high, although public perceptions
40 of the tax burden are arguably as important as
the tax rate. In Estonia, for example, the landfill
30 tax rate is relatively low compared to many other
European countries and not even particularly high
20 in Estonian prices but has increased considerably
within a few years. The rapid increase means that
10 Estonian waste companies and municipalities
consider the tax to be high and it therefore has the
0 desired effect. Besides ensuring that fiscal measures
are onerous enough to create adequate incentives,
s
re
le
op
)
rt
ie
in
in
in
sa
ltu
cr
po
it
en
en
ap
regular communication activities are particularly

le
al
cu
ex
ed
rd
rd
sc
ho
ip
ri
li s
nd
ga
ga
ic
important to keep households and others aware and

.
w
Ag
cl
un
ia
s/
La
n
e
al
ec
(i
ie
M
at
ci
active in separating waste and participating in home

or
Sp
s
iv
er
er
Pr
ct
m
th
composting schemes.
fa
om
O
il
C
So
Germany (2006) The Landfill Directive provides that Member States

Flemish Region (2006)
must ensure that all costs involved in setting
Italy (2002)
up and operating a landfill site, as well as the
estimated costs of the closure and after‑care of the
Source: ETC/RWM, 2008c, d, f. site for a period of at least 30 years, are covered

by the gate fee. The Waste Incineration Directive Gate fees for incineration are higher than for landfill
sets emission limits and monitoring requirements and have risen by 5–12 % per annum. Information on
for pollutants entering air and water, and many landfilling and incineration gate fees derives mainly
plants also have to apply best available techniques from the Flemish Region and Finland, however, as
according to the Integrated Pollution Prevention and information for the other countries is scarce.
Control Directive. These provisions have increased
abatement costs and thus also gate fees (Figure 10.7). In the Flemish Region, Germany and Italy
In this section we discuss the gate fees for landfill incineration prices are 30–70 % higher than landfill
and incineration. Collection and transport costs are gate fees whereas the price in Finland was lower
not considered. until 2006 when it rose to 25 % higher than landfill.
The price increase is the result of increasingly strict
In 2004, Germany and Italy had the highest gate fees environmental standards, for example investments to
for landfilling at EUR 80–90 per tonne in 2005 prices. abate dioxin and NOX emissions.
Costs were lower in the Flemish Region and Finland
at EUR 47–60 per tonne. Hungary and Estonia had
the lowest gate fees at EUR 30–36 per tonne. 10.9 Regional responsibilities and
cooperation
Reviewing gate fee growth in the decade to 2006,
it is interesting to note that fees have rocketed When the competent waste authorities or
in Estonia by 700 %. Finland has experienced a government sets targets for waste management,
similar change as fees have risen by almost 300 %. there is a need to define clearly not only those
The increase has been more moderate in the targets but also the institutions and actors
Flemish Region in the last ten years with a rise of responsible for meeting them.
40 %. It seems reasonable to attribute these cost
increases to implementation of the In the Flemish Region, the Waste Plan's
Landfill Directive — and anticipation of it. provisions apply to all public authorities,
Figure 10.7 Gate fees for landfilling municipal waste (excluding tax and VAT)
EUR per tonne in 2005 prices
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Estonia Germany Hungary — MSW
Finland Hungary — BMW Italy
Flemish Region
Source: ETC/RWM, 2008a–f; and Eurostat HICP.

including municipalities and the public or private 10.10 Public acceptance

institutions that carry out tasks for them. Thus,
when the Plan includes per capita targets for Public acceptance is absolutely crucial in
collecting residual waste, these have to be met determining what alternatives to landfilling are
by each municipality. A similar situation exists political feasible. Communication and information
in Italy where 'optimal management areas' are programmes therefore clearly have an important
responsible for meeting per capita targets for role to play in explaining to the general public
landfilling BMW. The lack of clearly defined the true costs and benefits of alternative waste
responsibilities was one of the factors limiting management (and energy generation) strategies.
further diversion of municipal waste from landfill
in Finland. Two previous EEA policy effectiveness In Hungary, for example, the public has broadly
studies on packaging waste (EEA, 2005a) and supported material recovery during the last
wastewater treatment (EEA, 2005b) also highlight ten years but is largely opposed to waste
the importance of defining clear institutional incineration because of environmental concerns.
responsibilities and their geographical scope. This puts significant constraints on the options
for policy‑makers when formulating waste
Cooperation between municipalities or larger diversion strategies. In Estonia, by contrast,
geographical units such as provinces or districts enthusiasm for material recovery is matched by a
seems to be a necessary condition to ensure the broadly favourable attitude towards using waste
availability of necessary financial and human incineration to produce energy in place of highly
capacity to build up alternatives to landfill. At the polluting oil shale combustion.
same time, cooperation needs to be well planned.
In Hungary, for example, some cooperation In Finland there was a negative attitude to
associations overlap with regional planning areas, incineration in the 1980s and 1990s. Like Estonia,
creating problems with regard to institutional however, Finland expects that incineration will be
responsibilities. one of the pillars of its waste policies in the future in
order to meet the Landfill Directive targets. Opinion
In the Flemish Region the already densely in Finland on incineration with energy recovery
populated municipalities enhanced their capacities became more positive due to the climate change
by forming inter‑municipal associations in the debate and the introduction of new and stricter
1980s. In Finland the process started in the 1990s, EU standards for emissions from incineration plants.
when policy‑makers realised that the small,
fragmented and sparsely populated municipalities In the Flemish Region waste incineration with
would manage waste better if they united to form energy recovery is fully accepted as a means
inter‑municipal companies. Although the Landfill to divert waste from landfills. In Germany and
Directive did not initiate regional cooperation in Italy public acceptance of dedicated incinerators
the Flemish Region and Finland, the cooperation varies among the federal states and regions. In
has been an important factor in establishing the federal states and regions opposed to dedicated
necessary capacity and systems to recover waste. incineration, however, there is an acceptance of
mechanical‑biological treatment, which usually
In Italy, regions define 'optimal management includes incineration of a part of the residues in
areas' that generally correspond to provincial cement kilns and power stations. In Italy the output
boundaries. The aim is to achieve a 'critical mass' is mainly used in landfill daily coverage and land
for economically feasible waste management. reclamation activities, or it is landfilled.
In the 2000s, municipalities in Estonia and Estonia has not experienced problems selecting
Hungary faced an increasing number of waste locations for new landfills as the population is well
management obligations but lacked the financial aware of the benefits of a modern landfill. This
resources to fulfil them. After a difficult period does not seem to be the case in Hungary and Italy
during which municipalities struggled alone, where the 'not‑in‑my‑backyard' syndrome prevails.
policy‑makers created more incentives for them to However, in Italy, information campaigns and the
work together. There are already several positive promotion of best available techniques have raised
examples of regional cooperation. acceptance of new landfill sites.

References
11 References

Alwast, H; Birnstengel, B; and Baumann, W. ,2008. EEA, 2005a. Effectiveness of packaging waste management
European Atlas of Secondary Raw Material. 2004 Status systems in selected countries: an EEA pilot study.
Quo and Potentials, Prognos AG and Institut für European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
Umweltforschung/Universitaet Dortmund, January
2008. EEA, 2005b. Effectiveness of urban wastewater treatment
policies in selected countries: an EEA pilot study.
APAT, 2007. Rapporto Rifiuti 2007. Agenzia Nazionale European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
per la Protezione dell'Ambiente e per i servizi
tecnici, Rome. EEA, 2007a. The road from landfilling to recycling:
common destination, different routes. European
Bilitewski, B., 2003. Die Quersubventionierung der Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
DSD‑Altpapier‑Sammlung und –Sortierung durch das
kommunale Altpapier. Müllhandbuch, MuA Lfg. EEA, 2007b. Europe's Environment, The Fourth
Assessment. European Environment Agency,
CIC, 2009. Italian Composting Association
Copenhagen.
website. Available at: http://compost.it/index.
php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=10&
EEA, 2007c. Annual European Community greenhouse
Itemid=77 [Accessed 9 March 2009].
gas inventory 1990–2005 and inventory report 2007. EEA
Technical report No 7/2007. European Environment
Destatis, 2007. Statistiken zur Abfallwirtschaft.
Agency, Copenhagen.
Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis). Available at:
www.bmu.de/abfallwirtschaft/statistiken_zu_
EEA, 2008a. Better management of municipal waste will
abfallwirtschaft/doc/5886.php [Accessed 7 April
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, EEA Briefing 1/2008.
2009].
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
EC, 2008a. Communication from the Commission to EEA, 2008b. Effectiveness of environmental taxes and
the European Parliament, the Council, the European charges for managing sand, gravel and rock extraction in
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of selected EU countries. European Environment Agency,
the Regions — 20 20 by 2020 — Europe's climate change Copenhagen.
opportunity. COM(2008) 30 final. Commission of the
European Communities, Brussels. ENDS Europe, 2008. Plummeting prices call for recycling
rethink. Available at: www.endseurope.com/20215?ref
EC, 2008b. Green paper on the management of errer=channel‑waste [Accessed 5 March 2009].
biowaste in the European Union. COM(2008) 811
final. Commission of the European Communities, EP/EC, 2002. Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European
Brussels. Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down
the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme.
EC, 2008c. Proposal for a directive of the European Official Journal of the European Communities, 10
Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the September 2002, L 242/1.
use of energy from renewable sources. COM(2008) 19
final. Commission of the European Communities, ETC/RWM, 2008a. Evaluation of waste policies related
Brussels. to the Landfill Directive, Estonia. ETC/RWM working
paper 3/2008. European Topic Centre on Resource
EEA, 2001. Reporting on environmental measures — are and Waste Management, Copenhagen. Available at:
we being effective?, European Environment Agency, http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/publications/ [Accessed 27
Copenhagen. February 2009].

References
ETC/RWM, 2008b. Evaluation of waste policies related Eurostat, 2009. Half a ton of municipal waste generated
to the Landfill Directive, Finland. ETC/RWM working per person in the EU27 in 2007. Eurostat news realease
paper 4/2008. European Topic Centre on Resource 31/2009, Luxembourg.
and Waste Management, Copenhagen. Available
at: http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/publications/ Gallenkemper, B., 1994. Getrennte Sammlung von
[Accessed 27 February 2009]. Wertstoffen des Hausmülls. Erich Schmidt Verlag,
Berlin.
ETC/RWM, 2008c. Evaluation of waste policies related
to the Landfill Directive, The Flemish Region. ETC/ Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water,
RWM working paper 5/2008. European Topic 2004. Strategy for the Management of Biodegradable
Centre on Resource and Waste Management, Waste in Municipal Solid Waste Management 2004¬2016.
Copenhagen. Available at: http://scp.eionet.europa. Budapest, Hungary.
eu/publications/ [Accessed 27 February 2009].
Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water, 2005.
ETC/RWM, 2008d. Evaluation of waste policies Programme for treatment of biodegradable municipal wastes
related to the Landfill Directive, Germany. ETC/RWM in municipal solid wastes (Bio‑P). Budapest, Hungary.
working paper 6/2008. European Topic Centre on
Resource and Waste Management, Copenhagen. IEA, 2005. International Energy Agency Statistics,
Available at: http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/ Renewables. Available at: www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/
publications/ [Accessed 27 February 2009]. prodresult.asp?PRODUCT=Renewables [Accessed 27
February 2009].
ETC/RWM, 2008e. Evaluation of waste policies
related to the Landfill Directive, Hungary. ETC/RWM ISTAT, 2007. Statistiche ambientali. Available at:
working paper 7/2008. European Topic Centre on www.istat.it/dati/catalogo/20070817_00/ [Accessed
Resource and Waste Management, Copenhagen. 7 April 2009].
Available at: http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/
publications/ [Accessed 27 February 2009]. Mazzanti, M. and Zoboli, R., 2008. 'Waste generation,
waste disposal and policy effectiveness: Evidence
ETC/RWM, 2008f. Evaluation of waste policies related on decoupling from the European Union'. Resources,
to the Landfill Directive, Italy. ETC/RWM working Conservation and Recycling. 52: 1221¬1234.
paper 8/2008. European Topic Centre on Resource
and Waste Management, Copenhagen. Available Parent, F.; Vanacker, L.; Vandeputte, A. and Wille., D.,
at: http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/publications/ 2004. Municipal waste management in Flanders –
[Accessed 27 February 2009]. Experiences and Challenges. Public Waste Agency of
Flanders.
ETC/RWM, 2008g. The evaluation of landfill policy
effectiveness: A methodology for country studies. ETC/ Statistics Finland, 2007a. Hanteringen av det kommunala
RWM working paper 9/2008. European Topic avfallet i ett brytningsskede. Available at: www.stat.fi/
Centre on Resource and Waste Management, til/jate/2006/jate_2006_2007‑11‑15_tie_001_sv.html
Copenhagen. Available at: http://scp.eionet.europa. [Accessed 7 April 2009].
eu/publications/ [Accessed 27 February 2009].
Statistics Finland, 2007b. Mängden avfall efter sektor
ETC/RWM, 2008h. Waste prevention, waste och avfallstyp år 2004. Available at: www.stat.fi/til//
management and landfill policies effectiveness. Outline jate/2004/jate_2004_2006‑09‑05_tau_002_sv.html
of a quantitative analysis at European level. ETC/ [Accessed 7 April 2009].
RWM working paper 10/2008. European Topic
Centre on Resource and Waste Management, Statistics Flemish Region. Vlaamse Statistieken.
Copenhagen. Available at: http://scp.eionet.europa. Available at: http://aps.vlaanderen.be/statistiek/cijfers/
eu/publications/ [Accessed 27 February 2009]. stat_cijfers_milieu.htm#Afval [Accessed 7 April 2009].
Eurostat Structural Indicators. Available at: http:// Ventour, L., 2008. The food we waste. A study on the
epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid amount, types and nature of the food we throw away in UK
=1133,47800773,1133_47802558&_dad=portal&_ households. Waste & Resources Action Programme,
schema=PORTAL [Accessed 27 February 2009]. Banbury, the United Kingdom.

Glossary of abbreviations and definitions
12 Glossary of abbreviations and

definitions
ATO Optimal areas for the management of waste in Italy (Ambito

Territoriale Ottimale)
BMW Biodegradable municipal waste
EEA European Environment Agency
ETC/RWM European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management
MSW Municipal solid waste
MBT Mechanical‑biological treatment
NGO Non‑governmental organizations
OVAM Public waste agency of Flanders (De Openbare Vlaamse
Afvalstoffenmaatschappij
PAYT Pay‑as‑you‑throw system of charging for waste collection
depending on the amount of waste the user of the system
throws into the waste bin
RDF Refuse derived fuel
TASi German Technical Guidance on MSW Treatment
TOC Total organic carbon
VAT Value added tax
VLACO Flemish compost organisation (Vlaamse Compostorganisatie)


2009 — 64 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm
ISBN 978‑92‑9167‑998‑0
EEA Report series: ISSN: 1725‑9177
DOI 10.2800/10886
SALES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
Publications for sale produced by the Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities are available from our sales agents throughout the
world.
How do I set about obtaining a publication?

Once you have obtained the list of sales agents, contact the sales agent of
your choice and place your order.
How do I obtain the list of sales agents?

• Go to the Publications Office website www.publications.europa.eu
• Or apply for a paper copy by fax +352 2929 42758
DOI 10.2800/10886
TH‑AL‑09‑007‑EN‑C
Price (excluding VAT): EUR 10.00
Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00
Fax: +45 33 36 71 99
Web: eea.europa.eu
Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries

Landfill Directive Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Landfill Directive Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EEA Report No 7/2009

Diverting waste from landfill

Diverting waste from landfill

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009

Printed by Schultz Grafisk

— Quality Certificate: ISO 9001: 2000

CyclusOffset 250 gsm.

REG.NO. DK- 000244

European Environment Agency

Executive summary ................................................................................................... 7

Impact of EU policy ................................................................................................ 7

Successful national policies...................................................................................... 8

Summary of national strategies...............................................................................10

1.1 Why study policies on diverting waste from landfill? .........................................12

1.2 EEA and policy effectiveness evaluations ........................................................13

1.3 Aims of the present study ............................................................................13

2 Waste management in the EU‑27 ....................................................................... 15

2.1 Development of municipal waste generation ...................................................16

2.2 Development of municipal waste management ................................................17

2.3 Drivers of change in waste generation and waste management .........................19

3 Methodological considerations ........................................................................... 21

3.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................21

3.2 Indicator‑based analysis ..............................................................................21

3.3 Interviews with key stakeholders...................................................................25

4.1 Waste management situation........................................................................26

4.2 Waste policy objectives ................................................................................26

4.3 Institutional context ....................................................................................27

4.4 Policy instruments .......................................................................................27

4.5 Observations on effectiveness .......................................................................28

5.1 Waste management situation........................................................................30

5.2 Waste policy objectives ................................................................................30

5.3 Institutional context ....................................................................................31

5.4 Policy instruments ......................................................................................31

5.5 Observations on effectiveness .......................................................................32

6 Flemish Region of Belgium ................................................................................. 34

6.1 Waste management situation........................................................................34

6.2 Waste policy objectives ................................................................................34

6.3 Institutional context ....................................................................................34

6.4 Policy instruments ......................................................................................35

6.5 Observations on effectiveness .......................................................................36

7.1 Waste management situation........................................................................38

7.2 Waste policy objectives ................................................................................38

7.3 Institutional context ....................................................................................39

7.4 Policy instruments ......................................................................................39

7.5 Observations on effectiveness .......................................................................40

Diverting waste from landfill 3

8.1 Waste management situation........................................................................42

8.2 Waste policy objectives ................................................................................42

8.3 Institutional context ....................................................................................43

8.4 Policy instruments ......................................................................................43

8.5 Observations on effectiveness .......................................................................44

9.1 Waste management situation........................................................................46

9.2 Waste policy objectives ................................................................................46

9.3 Institutional context ....................................................................................47

9.4 Policy instruments ......................................................................................47

9.5 Observations on effectiveness .......................................................................48

10 Comparative assessment and conclusions.......................................................... 50

10.1 Impact of EU policy .....................................................................................50

10.2 Influence of renewable energy policies ...........................................................51

10.3 Generation of biodegradable municipal waste ..................................................52

10.4 Landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste (Landfill Directive target) ...............53

10.5 Treatment capacity .....................................................................................53

10.6 Separate collection of biodegradable municipal waste fractions ..........................57